Infonmation  lor*  the  People. 


|  i  6  Pages, 


<3 


tko.  a. 


CAN  THE  NATION  TRUST 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  PARTY  ? 


Can  the  nation  trust  Democracy  with  the 
administration  of  the  Government  ?  This 
question  has  already  been  answered  by  the 
people  four  times — first  in  I860,  second  in 
1864,  third  in  1868,  fourth  in  1872.  Each 
time  the  answer  has  been  given  by  over¬ 
whelming  majorities  :  “  The  Democratic 

party  cannot  be  trusted  with  the  control  of 
the  Government  !  ” 

Is  there  anything  in  the  present  condition 
of  the  country,  or  the  present  character  of 
the  Democratic  party,  to  call  for  a  change  of 
the  popular  verdict  in  1876  ? 

If  there  is,  what  is  Its  nature  ?  Have  the 
people  become  less  loyal  to  the  Union,  or  has 
Democracy  become  more  loyal  ?  To  call  for  a 
reversal  of  the  verdict,  rendered  four  times, 
a  radical  change  must  be  shown,  either  in 
the  sentiments  of  the  people,  or  in  the  sen¬ 
timents  of  the  Democratic  party.  Has  this 
change  taken  place  ?  If  so,  when,  where, 
and  under  what  circumstances  ? 

No  friend  of  good  government,  who  desires 
peace  and  unity,  could  for  a  moment  desire 
the  restoration  of  Democracy  to  power,  if  he 
felt  assured  that  its  political  principles  were 
the  same  as  those  held  previous  to  the  re¬ 
bellion,  during  its  existence  and  throughout 
the  period  of  reconstruction. 

To  believe  otherwise,  would  be  to  believe 
that  good  citizens  could  be  found  who  would 
be  willing  to  reject  the  party  whose  wisdom, 
patriotism,  and  courage  saved  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  and  accept  the  party  whose  energies 
and  influence  were  united  in  the  effort  to 
overthrow*  it.  Fair-minded  men  will  agree 
on  the  two  propositions.  First,  The  man 
who  proves  his  friendship  in  the  hour  of 
need  ought  not  to  be  distrusted  in  the  hour 
of  prosperity.  Second,  The  man  who  showed 
his  enmity  when  friendship  was  needed, 
has  no  claim  to  our  confidence  when  his 
enmity  can  no  longer  injure  us.  It  is  pos¬ 
sible  for  a  former  friend  to  become  an  enemy, 
and  an  old  enemy  to  become  a  friend ;  but 
the  proof  of  the  change  must  precede  the 
belief  that  it  has  actually  taken  place. 

The  rule  holds  good  with  parties,  for  par¬ 
ties  are  but  individuals  in  their  collective 
capacity  ;  and  for  this  reason  it  may  be  laid 
down  as  a  rule,  that  whatever  of  sentiment 
or  principle  characterizes  individuals,  will 
aurely  find  reflection  in  the  parties  with 
which  they  affiliate. 

Therefore,  the  practical  question  for  rea¬ 
sonable  men  to  ask  and  answer  is,  Is  the 
Democratic  party,  in  principle  and  sentiment, 
the  same  as  it  was  in  1861  ?  If  it  is,  then  it 
cannot  be  trusted  to-day.  If  it  is  not  the 
same,  wherein  does  it  differ  ?  Is  the  change  a 
radical  one,  so  honestly  and  earnestly  made 
as  to  preclude  the  possibility  of  a  recurrence 
of  troubles  which  were  met  and  overcome  by 


the  Nation  hundreds  of  thousands  of  lives, 
and  millions  of  treasure  ? 

Before  the  people  can  consider,  on  equal 
terms,  the  restoration  of  Democracy  to  power, 
the  proof  must  be  submitted  that  a  radical 
change  has  taken  place  in  its  sentiments  and 
principles,  its  teachings  and  purposes.  The 
proof  must  be  strong,  so  clear  that  he  who 
runs  may  read  ;  for  on  a  question  of  such 
vital  importance  to  the  future  welfare  of  the 
Republic,  the  people  cannot  afford  to  run  any 
risks.  The  preservation  of  the  Government 
has  cost  them  too  much  to  try  any  political 
experiments  in  the  management  of  its  affairs. 
The  people  know  what  the  Republican  party 
has  done,  is  now  doing,  and  will  do  in  the 
future  for  the  country.  On  the  vital  question 
of  unity  and  nationality,  they  are  assured 
that  it  can  be  trusted.  True  in  war,  they 
know  it  cannot  prove  false  in  peace.  True  in 
the  past,  they  have  every  reason  to  believe 
that  it  will  continue  true  in  the  future. 
Democracy  having  been  false  in  the  past, 
they  have  the  right  to  demand  the  strongest 
guarantee  that  it  will  not  be,  if  entrusted 
with  power,  false  in  the  future. 

Can  Democracy  give  such  guarantee  ?  Has 
it  abandoned  the  fatal  doctrine  of  State  Rights 
as  preached  by  Calhoun,  fought  for  by  the 
Southern  Confederacy,  and  practically  main¬ 
tained  by  the  Southern  wing  of  the  party 
to-day  ?  If  on  these  points  the  proof  is  clear 
that  a  radical  change  has  taken  place,  then 
the  issue  is  simply  one  of  administration, 
turning  upon  the  relative  character  of  men, 
and  not  upon  the  principles  which  they  hold. 
The  result,  whatever  it  might  be,  would  no 
longer  be  experimental ;  for  the  people  would 
feel  assured  that  a  change  of  administration 
would  not  imperil  the  peace  and  unity  of  the 
Nation. 

A  careful  review  of  the  Democratic  record 
must  be  convincing  to  the  unprejudiced 
mind  that  no  change  has  taken  place  in  the 
sentiments  of  Democracy.  What  it  believed 
in  the  days  of  Buchanan,  it  advocated  in  1860, 
endorsed  in  1864,  affirmed  in  1868,  re-affirmed 
in  1S72,  and,  unless  checked  in  its  preten¬ 
sions  by  the  votes  of  the  American  people, 
it  will  re-establish  through  a  Democratic 
administration  in  1876. 

DEMOCRACY,  THE  STATE  RIGHTS  PARTY. 

For  the  past  forty  years,  the  Democratic 
party  has  been  controlled  by  men  who  ac¬ 
cepted  the  fatal  doctrine  )f  State  Rights,  as 
preached  by  John  C.  Cal  loun,  as  the  basis 
of  our  Federal  Union. 

Under  this  doctrine,  th  State  was  held  to 
be  supreme.  The  Union  was  regarded  as  a 
mere  arrangement  for  convenience,  to  be 
cast  aside  whenever  it  suited  the  pleasure  or 
interest  of  a  State  to  so  decide. 

A  State  could  obey  or  disobey  the  laws  of 


who  could  have  been  brought  to 


a  State  Convention,  could,  under  this  doc¬ 
trine,  place  the  State  outside  of  the  national 
authority.  A  simple  resolution  declaring 
that  the  State  had  withdrawn  from  the  Union 
was  all  that  was  required  to  transform  the 
part  into  the  whole,  or  the  fraction  of  a 
nation  into  a  nation,  supreme  in  its  own 
sovereignty.  It  was  held  by  the  advocates 
of  this  State  Rights  doctrine,  that  a  State, 
entering  the  Union  of  its  own  free  will,  could 
withdraw  with  equal  freedom.  Ih  other 
words,  one  party  to  a  contract  could  break 
it  at  his  pleasure,  because  he  entered  it  of 
his  own  free  will. 

The  sophism  itself  is,  in  the  language  of 
Abraham  Lincoln  : 

“  That  any  State  of  the  Union  may,  con¬ 
sistently  with  the  national  Constitution,  and 
therefore  lawfully  aDd  peacefully ,  withdraw 
from  the  Uni#n,  without  the  consent  of  the 
Union,  or  of  any  other  State.  The  little  dis¬ 
guise  that  the  supposed  right  is  to  be  exer¬ 
cised  only  for  just  cause,  themselves  to  be  the 
sole  judge  of  its  justice,  is  too  thin  to  merit 
any  notice.  With  rebellion  thus  sugar- 
coated,  they  have  been  drugging  the  public 
mind  of  their  section  for  more  than  thirty 
years  ;  and  until  at  length  they  have  brought 
many  good  men  to  a  willingness  to  take  up 
arms  against  the  Government  the  day  after 
some  assemblage  of  men  have  enacted  the 
farcical  pretense  of  taking  their  State  out  of 
the  Union, 

no  such  thing  the  day  before .” 

President  Lincoln,  in  his  first  message  to 
Congress,  July  4,  1861,  disposes  of  this  pre¬ 
tentious  doctrine  in  the  following  words  : 

“  What  is  now  combatted  is  the  position 
that  secession  is  consistent  with  the  Constitu¬ 
tion — is  lawful  and  peaceful.  It  is  not  con¬ 
tended  that  there  is  any  express  law  for  it ; 
and  nothing  should  ever  be  implied  as  law 
which  leads  to  unj  ust  or  absurd  consequences. 
The  Nation  purchased  with  money  the  coun¬ 
tries  out  of  which  several  of  these  States  were 
formed.  Is  it  just  that  they  should  go  off, 
without  leave  and  without  refunding  ?  The 
Nation  paid  very  large  sums  (in  the  aggre¬ 
gate,  I  believe,  nearly  a  hundred  millions)  to 
relieve  Florida  of  the  aboriginal  tribes.  Is 
it  just  that  they  should  now  be.  off  without 
consent,  or  without  making  any  return  ?  The 
Nation  is  now  in  debt  for  money  applied  to 
the  benefit  of  these  so-called  seceding  States, 
■c‘q  common  with  the  rest.  Is  it.  just  either  that 
reditors  should  go  unpaid,  or  the  remaining 
tates  pay  the  whole  ?  A  part  of  the  present 
ational  debt  was  contracted  to  pay  the  old 
ebts  of  Texas.  Is  it  just  that  she  should 
eave,  and  pay  no  part  of  this  herself  ? 

“  Again,  if  one  State  may  secede,  so  may 
another  ;■  and  when  all  shall  have  seceded, 
none  is  left  to  pay  the  debts.  Is  this  quite 
just  to  creditors?  Did  we  notify  them  of 
this  sage  view  of  ours  when  we  borrowed 
their  money  ? 

“  If  we  now  recognize  this  doctrine,  by 
allowing  the  seeeders  to  go  in  peace,  it  is 
difficult  to  see  what  we  can  do  if  others 


“  If  all  the  States  save  one  should  assert 
the  power  to  drive  that  one  out  of  the  Union, 
it  is  presumed  the  whole  class  of  seceder 
politicians  would  at  once  deny  the  power,  and 
denounce  the  act  as  the  greatest  outrage  upon 
State  Rights.  But  suppose  that  precisely  the 
same  act,  instead  of  being  called  ‘  driving 
the  one  out,’  should  be  called  ‘  the  seceding 
of  all  the  others  from  that  one,’  it  would  be 
exactly  what  the  seeeders  claim  to  do  ;  unless, 
indeed,  they  make  the  point  that  the  one, 
because  it  is  a  minority,  may  rightfully  do 
what  the  others,  because  they  are  a  majority, 
may  not  rightfully  do.  These  politicians  are 
subtle  and  profound  on  the  rights  of  minori¬ 
ties.  They  are  not  partial  to  that  power  which 
made  the  Constitution,  and  speaks  from  the 
preamble,  calling  itself,  1  We  the  People.’ 


* 


* 


* 


* 


“Asa  private  citizen,  the  Executive  could 
gnot  have  consented  that  these  institutions 
rshall  perish,  much  less  could  he  in  betrayal 
of  so  vast  and  so  sacred  a  trust  as  these  free 
people  had  confided  to  him.  He  felt  that  he 
had  no  moral  right  to  shrink,  nor  even  to 
count  the  chances  of  his  own  life,  in  what 
might  follow.  In  full  view  of  his  great  re¬ 
sponsibility,  he  has,  so  far,  done  what  he  has 
deemed  his  duty.  You  will  now,  according 
to  your  own  judgment,  perform  yours.” 

Through  the  courage  and  patriotism  of  the 
American  people,  the  Government  has  been 
preserved.  The  practical  issue  now  pre¬ 
sented  is,  Shall  the  control  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  be  taken  from  the  loyal  hands  that 
preserved  it,  and  placed  in  the  hands  of 
those  who  endeavored  to  destroy  it  ? 

All  other  issues  are  secondary.  Finance, 
protection,  or  free  trade,  as  national  issues, 
are  unworthy  of  mention  when  compared 
with  the  vital  issue  before  the  people,  Shall 
the  Nation  be  ruled  by  those  who  have 
proven  their  loyalty,  or  by  those  who  e*n- 
spired  to  betray  it  ? 

On  this  plain  issue,  the  vital  one  in  the 
pending  campaign,  the  question  is  again 
asked.  Can  the  Nation  trust  the  Democratic 
party  ? 

We  are  asked  to  forget  the  past,  to  turn  pur 
back  on  the  things  that  have  been,  and  face 
the  things  thai  are  to  be.  This  is  a  human 
impossibilit}7-.  The  past  is  the  index  of  the 
future — the  best  light  to  guide  individuals 
or  nations.  To  shut  our  eyes  or  ears  to  its 
teachings,  is  to  invite  disasters  which,  its 
wisdom  directs  us  to  avoid. 

The  deeds  of  the  fathers  are  the  pride  of 
our  generation.  We  talk  of  them,  glory 
over  them,  and  hold  them  up  as  examples  to 
make  us  better  and  wiser.  Our  Centennial 
celebrations  develop  our  sense  of  justice, 
and  prove  that  even  the  changes  of  a  oentury 
cannot  obliterate  from  our  hearts  the  grati¬ 
tude  which  we  owe  to  the  memory  of  those 
whose  wisdom  and  patriotism  gave  birth  to 
the  Republic. 

The  loyal  people,  through  President  Lin¬ 
coln,  their  representatives  in  Congress,  and 
the  armv  and  navy,  nobly  performed  their 


colve,  was  crushed  after  years  of  bloody 
conflict.  This  conflict  cost  the  nation  at 
least  500, 0r>0  lives  and  $5,000,000,000.  Great 
as  was  the  sacrifice,  those  who  were  called 
upon  to  make  it,  never  faltered  in  the  per¬ 
formance  of  their  work,  Shall  those  who 
to-day  are  enjoying  the  fruits  of  their  labor, 
falter  in  the  performance  of  a  duty  no  less 
sacred  than  the  one  that  secured  to  humanity 
the  unity,  integrity,  and  freedom  of  our  great 
Republic  ? 

Therefore,  to  forget  the  recent  struggle, 
to  blind  ourselves  to  that  noble  spirit  of 
loyalty  which  sacrificed  life  and  treasure  to 
perpetuate  the  work  of  the  early  fathers, 
would  be  to  trample  justice  under  foot,  and 
acknowledge  ourselves  unworthy  the  sacred 
trust  transmitted  to  us.  To  forgive  our 
enemies  is  a  divine  injunction;  but  even 
divine  forgiveness  does  not  imply  forgetful¬ 
ness  of  right  and  wrong,  nor  require  the 
surrender  of  the  right,  or  those  who  were 
true  to  it,  to  the  wrong,  and  those  who  up¬ 
held  it. 

Reconciliation  is  desirable,  but  it  should 
be  brought  about  on  a  national  basis.  The 
spirit  of  reconciliation  which  demands,  as  a 
condition,  the  restoration  of  the  Democratic 
State  Rights  party,  would  be  not  only 
treacherous,  but  dangerous  te  the  peace  of 
the  nation. 

The  fatal  heresy  of  State  Rights  ought  to 
have  died  with  the  Rebellion.  The  South¬ 
ern  Confederacy  illustrated  its  full  power, 
and  with  its  overthrow  the  doctrine  should 
have  been  buried  from  sight  forever. 

If  Northern  Democracy  had  been  feee  from 
its  influence,  this  would  have  been  the  case, 
but  it  retained  the  old  poison  in  its  system. 
It  has  never  been  free  from  it,  and  to-day, 
united  with  the  Bourbon  Democracy  of  the 
South,  it  is  under  the  control  of  Calhounism, 
and  liable,  if  entrusted  with  power,  to  again 
plunge  the  country,  on  some  slight  pretext, 
into  troubles  even  greater  than  those  hitherto 
endured. 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  RECORD  BEFORE  THE  WAR. 

Through  Democracy,  the  South,  prior  to 
the  war,  practically  controlled  the  Govern¬ 
ment.  It  shaped  the  affairs  of  the  nation  to 
suit  its  own  interest.  It  filled  its  important 
offices  at  home  and  abroad.  It  gave  direc¬ 
tion  to  national  legislation  ;  it  created  the 
policy  of  the  Government,  and  when  it  could 
no  longer  govern,  it  endeavored  to  destroy. 
This  statement  is  a  correct  one.  It  has 
passed  into  history,  and  cannot  be  refuted. 

Alexander  H.  Stephens,  who  afterward 
became  the  Vice-President  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy,  delivered  a  speech  against  the 
policy  of  secession,  before  the  State  Conven¬ 
tion  of  Georgia,  January,  1861.  He  said  : 

^  kat  have  we  to  gain  by  this  proposed 
change  of  our  relation  to  the  General  Gov¬ 
ernment  ? 

“  We  have  always  had  the  control  of  it ,  and 
can  yet ,  ij  we  remain  in  it ,  and  are  as  united 
as  we  have  been.  We  have  had  a  majority  of 
the  Presidents  chesen  from  the  South,  as  well 


of  Southern  Presidents  to  their  tweaty-four, 
thus  controlling  the  Executive  Department. 
So,  of  the  judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  wo 
have  had  eighteen  from  the  Seutli,  and  hut 
eleven  from  the  North  ;  although  nearly  four- 
fifths  of  the  judicial  business  has  arisen  in  the  Free 
States,  yet  a  majority  of  the  Court  has  always 
been  from  the  South.  This  we  have  required 
so  as  to  guard  against  any  interpretation  of 
the  Constitution  unfavorable  to  us.  In  like 
manner,  we  have  been  equally  watchful  t© 
guard  our  interests  in  the  Legislative  branch 
of  Government.  In  choosing  the  presiding 
Presidents  ( pro  tern)  of  the  Senate,  we  have 
had  twenty -four  to  their  eleven.  Speakers 
of  the  House,  we  have  had  twenty-three, 
and  they  twelve.  While  the  majority  of  the 
Representatives,  from  their  greater  popula¬ 
tion,  have  always  been  from  the  North,  yet  we 
have  generally  secured  the  Speaker,  because 
he,  to  a  great  extent,  shapes  and  controls  the 
legislation  of  the  country.  Nor  hare  we 
had  less  control  in  every  other  Department 
of  the  General  Government.  Attorney-Gen¬ 
erals  we  have  had  fourteen,  while  the  North 
have  had  but  five.  Foreign  Ministers,  we 
have  had  eighty-six  and  they  but  fifty-four. 
While  three-fourths  of  the  business  which  demands 
diplomatic  agents  abroad  is  clearly  from  the  free 
States,  from  their  greater  commercial  inter¬ 
ests,  yet  we  have  had  the  principal  embassies 
so  as  te  secure  the  world-markets  for  onr 
cotton,  tobacco,  and  sugar,  on  the  best  pos¬ 
sible  terms.  We  have  had  a  vast  majority 
of  the  higher  eflieers  of  both  army  and  navy, 
while  a  larger  portion  of  the  soldiers  and 
sailors  were  drawn  from  the  North.  Equally 
so  of  clerks,  auditors,  and  comptrollers  filling 
the  Executive  Department,  the  records  show 
for  the  last  fifty  years,  that  ef  the  three 
thousand  thus  employed,  we  have  had  more 
than  two-tliirds  ef  the  same,  while  we  have  had 
but  one-third  of  the  white  population  of  the  Re¬ 
public. 

“  Again,  look  at  another  item,  and  one,  he 
assured,  in  which  we  have  a  great  and  vital 
interest :  it  is  that  of  revenue,  or  means  ©f 
supporting  Government.  From  official  docu¬ 
ments,  we  learn  that  a  fraction  over  three- 
J'ourths  of  the  revenue  collected  for  the  support 
of  Government,  has  unifouily  been  raised 
from  the  North. 

“  The  expense  for  the  transportation  of  the 
mail  in  the  free  States  was,  by  the  report  of 
the  Postmaster  General,  for  the  year  I860,  a 
little  over  $13,000,000,  while  the  income  was 
$19,000,000.  But  in  the  slave  States,  the 
transportation  of  the  mail  was  $14,716,000, 
while  the  revenue  from  the  same  was  $8,001,- 
026,  leaving  a  deficit  of  $6,704,974,  to  be 
supplied  by  the  North  for  our  accommodation ,  and 
without  it  we  must  have  been  entirely  out 
off  from  this  most  essential  branch  of  the 
Government.” 

This,  be  it  remembered,  is  not  the  lan¬ 
guage  of  a  Republican,  trying  to  paimt  a  pic¬ 
ture  for  party  efiect,  but  tlie  words  of  the 
Vice  President  of  the  late  Confederacy,  who 
will  he  accepted  as  good  authority  by  the 
most  ultra  Democrat. 


4 


1st.  That  the  Democratic-  party  before  the 
war  was  under  the  control  of  the  South,  and 
need  its  power  to  promote  Southern  interests 
and  ambition  at  the  expense  of  the  North. 

2d.  It  shows  that  the  South  had  no  jus¬ 
tification  for  its  attempt  to  withdraw  from 
the  Union. 

3d.  It  proves  the  fallacy  of  its  pretensions, 
that  it  was  driven  into  rebellion  by  Northern 
oppression. 

4th.  It  clearly  indicates  the  treasonable 
nature  of  the  party  that  preferred  to  break 
up  a  Government  that  it  could  no  longer 
control,  rather  than  submit  to  constitutional 
authority. 

oth.  It  foreshadows  the  ascendancy  of 
Southern  influence  in  all  departments  of  the 
Government  under  Democratic  restoration. 

The  statement  made  by  Mr.  Stephens  must 
convince  all  who  are  open  to  conviction,  that 
the  Southern  States  had  no  just  cause  for 
complaint.  The  defeat  of  the  State  Rights 
party,  and  through  this  defeat,  the  loss  of 
che  controlling  power,  were  the  causes  which 
brought  about  secession. 

Long  before  the  election  of  Abraham  Lin¬ 
coln,  the  Democratic  threat  had  been  made, 
both  in  the  Nq^tli  and  the  South,  that  the 
slave  States  would  not  submit  to  a  Republi¬ 
can  President.  The  threat  was  general 
throughout  the  South,  and  was  repeated  by 
Northern  leaders  on  the  stump,  and  by  the 
Democratic  press,  without  a  word  of  protest 
or  condemnation.  On  the  contrary,  every 
encouragement  was  held  out,  that  the  Demo¬ 
crats  of  the  North  would  not  only  endorse 
the  threat  of  secession,  but  lend  material 
aid  in  carrying  it  out. 

In  December,  1860,  Mr.  Gregg,  one  of  the 
delegates  to  the  South  Carolina  Convention, 
said : 

“If  we  wish  to  find  the  immediate  cause 
of  the  secession  of  South  Carolina,  the  im¬ 
mediate  cause  of  all  is  the  election  of  Abra¬ 
ham  Lincoln.” 

In  the  same  convention,  Mr.  Dargan  said  : 

“It  is  not  true,  in  point  of  fact,  that  all  the 
Northern  people  are  hostile  to  the  rights  of 
the  South.  t  We  have  a  Spartan  hand  in  every 
Northern  State.  It  is  due  to  them  they  should 
know  the  reasons  which  influence  us.  Accord¬ 
ing  to  our  apprehension,  the  necessity  which 
exists  for  our  immediate  withdrawal  from 
association  with  the  Northern  States,  is  that 
this  hostile  Abolition  party  have  the  control 
of  the  Government.” 

In  November,  1860,  Mr.  Lawrence  M. 
Keitt  delivered  a  speech  in  Charleston,  S.  C. 
He  said,  in  answer  to  an  assertion  that  any 
attempt  to  withdraw  from  the  Union  weuld 
be  met  with  force  : 

“  Let  me  tell  you,  there  are  a  million  of 
Democrats  in  the  North ,  who,  when  the  Black 
Republicans  attempt  to  march  upon  the 
Boutli,  will  be  found  a  wall  of  fire  in  the  front.  ’  ’ 
(Qries  of  “  That’s  so  1  ”  and  applause.) 

This  was  the  feeling  through  the  entire 
South.  Democracy  had  been  regarded  as 
the  State  Rights  party,  and  it  was  believed 
that  any  attempt  to  interfere  with  a  State 


in  its  withdrawal  from  the  Union,  would! 
unite  Northern  Democrats  in  armed  oppo¬ 
sition  to  it.  This  belief  was  encouraged  by 
prominent  leaders  of  the  Northern  wing  of 
the  party. 

An  extract  from  a  letter,  written  January 
6,  1860,  by  ex-President  Pierce  to  Jefferson 
Davis,  and  found  in  Davis’s  home,  in  Missis¬ 
sippi,  when  taken  by  our  troops,  reveals  tko 
grounds  of  the  belief  so  confidently  ex¬ 
pressed  by  leading  Southerners,  that  De¬ 
mocracy  would  be  a  unit  in  their  favor,  in 
case  a  rebellion  should  be  inaugurated. 

After  referring  to  political  matters,  and  ex¬ 
pressing  a  desire  to  have  Mr.  Davis  the  Dem¬ 
ocratic  candidate  for  the  Presidency,  the  ex- 
President  says  : 

“Let  me  suggest  that,  in  the  running  de¬ 
bates  in  Congress,  full  justice  seems  to  me 
not  to  have  been  done  to  the  Democracy  of 
the  North.  1  do  not  believe  that  our  friends 
at  the  South  have  any  just  idea  of  the  state 
of  feeling,  hurrying,  at  this  moment,  to  the 
pitch  of  intense  exasperation,  between  those 
who  respect  their  political  obligations,  and 
those  who  have  apparently  impelling 
power  but  that  which  fanatical  passion  on 
the  subject  of  domestic  slavery  imparts. 
Without  discussing  the  question  of  right,  of 
abstract  power,  to  secede,  I  have  never  be¬ 
lieved  that  actual  disruption  of  the  Union 
can  occur  without  blood  ;  and  if,  through 
the  madness  of  Northern  Abolitionism,  that 
dire  calamity  must  come,  the  fighting  will  not 
he  along  Mason's  and  Dixon's  line ,  merely .  It 
loill  he  within  our  own  borders — in  our  own  streets 
— between  the  two  classes  of  citizens  to  whom  1 
have  referred .” 

Is  it  to  be  wondered  at,  that  such  assur¬ 
ance  from  so  distinguished  a  Democrat  as  ex- 
President  Pierce,  and  repeated  in  private 
letters  and  public  speeches,  by  others  of 
equal  prominence,  should  leave  the  impres¬ 
sion  upon  the  Southern  mind  that  armed 
hostility  against  the  Government,  on  th«  part 
of  the  South,  would  receive  the  active  sym¬ 
pathy  of  Northern  Democracy  ? 

In  January,  1861,  Fernando  Wood,  tli®n 
Mayor  of  New  York  city,  sent  a  message  to 
the  Common  Council,  recommending  th© 
withdrawal  of  the  city  from  the  State.  II® 
favored  “a  free  city,”  as  he  termed  it,  and 
liis  scheme  met  with  approval  from  many 
leading  Democrats. 

About  the  same  time  (January  16),  as  if 
it  was  a  part  of  the  Democratic  programme, 
a  meeting  of  Democrats  was  held  in  National 
Hall,  Philadelphia.  At  this  meeting  a  reso¬ 
lution  was  adopted,  favoring  the  withdrawal 
of  Pennsylvania  from  the  Union,  and  ex¬ 
pressing  sentiments  in  keeping  with  thes®  ef 
the  South. 

It  is  well  known  that  leading  Democrats 
of  the  North  conspired,  in  the  spring  of  1861, 
to  carry  their  respective  States  out  of  the 
Union.  Ex-Governor  Price,  of  New  Jersey, 
in  a  letter  to  L.  W.  Burnet,  of  Newark.  N. 
eJ  sstid  • 

’“  i  believe  the  Southern  Confederation 
permanent.  The  proceeding  has  been  taken 


■»*** 


o 


with  forethought  and  deliberation — it  is  no 
hurried  impulse,  but  an  irrevocable  act, 
based  upon  the  sacred,  as  was  supposed, 
‘equality  of  the  States,’  and  in  my  opinion, 
every  slave  State  will,  in  a  short  period  of 
time,  be  found  united  in  one  confederacy. 

*  *  *  What  position  for  New  Jersey  will 

best  accord  with  her  interests,  honor,  and 
the  patriotic  instincts  of  her  people  ?  I  say 
emphatically,  she  should  go  with  the  South, 
from  every  wise,  prudential,  and  patriotic 
reason.” 

In  this  letter,  the  ex-Governor  also  gives  it 
as  his  opinion  that  New  York  and  Pennsyl¬ 
vania  will  “  choose  also  to  cast  their  lot  with 
the  South,”  and,  after  them,  the  Western 
and  Northwestern  States. 

If  necessary,  a  volume  could  he  filled  with 
unimpeachable  evidence,  tending  to  prove 
tbat  the  Southern  people  were  misled  by 
Democratic  leaders.  North  and  South.  In 
the  fall  and  winter  of  I860,  and  the  spring 
of  1861,  the  air  was  filled  with  Democratic 
threats  and  promises.  Incendiary  speeches 
were  made,  and  secret  caucuses  held  at  the 
National  Capital.  The  highest  Government 
officials — all  Democrats — conspired  with  tbe 
public  enemies.  Sven  President  Buckauan, 
although  he  declared  that  “  the  election  of 
any  one  of  our  fellow-citizens  to  the  office  of 
President,  does  not  of  itself  afford  just  cause 
for  dissolving  the  Union.”  gave  his  official 
encouragement  to  the  dissolution,  by  stating 
in  bis  last  annual  message,  Dec.  4,  1860  : 

“After  much  serious  reflection,  I  have  ar¬ 
rived  at  the  conclusion  that  the  Constitution 
has  not  delegated  to  Congress,  nor  to  any 
other  department  of  the  Federal  Government, 
the  power  to  coerce  a  State  into  submission, 
which  i3  attempting  to  withdraw,  or  has 
actually  withdrawn  from  the  confederacy.” 

At  an  earlier  date,  Nov.  20, 1860,  Attorney 
General  Black  had  given  his  opinion  to  the 
same  effect.  According  to  this  view,  the 
Government  could  act  only  on  the  defensive. 
It  could  repel  an  attack,  but  it  had  no  Con¬ 
stitutional  right  to  assert  its  authority  or 
protect  itself  by  any  offensive  measures.  In 
his  own  language,  “The  Union  must  utter¬ 
ly  perish  at  the  moment  when  Congress  shall 
arm  one  part  of  the  people  against  another 
for  any  purpose  beyond  that  of  merely  pro¬ 
tecting  the  General  Government  in  the  exer¬ 
cise  of  its  proper  Constitutional  functions.” 

If  we  need  more  convincing  proof  of  Dem¬ 
ocratic  encouragement  of  the  Southern  re¬ 
bellion,  than  what  has  already  been  present¬ 
ed,  jt  may  be  found  in  the  deliberate  transfer 
of  arms  from  Northern  to  Southern  arsenals, 
by  order  of  a  Democratic  Secretary  of  War, 
Mr.  Floyd. 

From  a  report  made  by  Mr.  B.  Stanton, 
from  the  Committee  on  Military  Affairs,  in 
the  ftouse  of  Representatives,  Feb.  18,  1861 , 
it  is  shown  that,  in  the  spring  of  1860,  the 
following  transfers  of  muskets  were  made 
from  the  Springfield  armory,  and  the  Water- 
town  and  Watervliet  arsenals : 


Percns- 

sion 

Muskets. 

Altered 

Muskets- 

To  Charleston  Arse- 

nal . 

9,280 

5,720 

To  North  Carolina 

i 

Arsenal . 

15,480 

9,520 

To  Augusta  Arsenal 

12,380 

7,620 

To  Mount  Vernon 

Arsenal . 

9,280 

5,720 

To  Baton  Rouge  Ar- 

senal  . 

18,580 

11,420 

Total . 

65,000 

40,000 

Rifles. 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

2,000 

2,00* 


10,00(1 

All  these  arms  fell  into  the  possession  oi 
the  Confederate  authorities,  as  it  was  known 
they  would  by  the  Democratic  Secretary  of 
War,  when  he  ordered  the  transfer. 

It  was  also  shown  in  the  same  report,  that 
the  Secretary  of  War  ordered  the  transfer  of 
forty  columbiads  and  four  32-pounders,  to 
unfinished  forts  on  Ship  Island,  on  the  coast 
of  Mississippi,  and  seventy  columbiads  and 
seven  32-pounders  to  be  sent  to  Galveston, 
Texas,  where  the  fort  to  receive  them  had 
just  been  commenced.  So  clear  was  tbe  evi¬ 
dence  that  these  heavy  guns  were  intended 
for  the  use  of  the  rebels,  that  a  monster 
mass  meeting  was  held  at  Allegheny,  Pa., 
the  place  where  the  arsenal  containing  them 
was  located,  and  a  protest  was  entered 
against  their  removal.  Through  the  action 
of  Judge  Holt,  the  present  Judge  Advocate- 
General,  the  transfer  of  the  guns  was  pre¬ 
vented. 

In  addition  to  the  arms  sent  South  by  a 
Democratic  Secretary  of  War,  upwards  of 
50,000  muskets  were  sold  by  the  Government 
to  parties  representing  Southern  interests. 
These  muskets  were  in  good  condition,  and 
yet  were  sold  for  $2.50.  Add  to  the  number 
transferred  and  sold,  tbe  annual  quota  dis¬ 
tributed  to  the  Southern  States  for  1861,  in 
advance,  and  it  will  be  found  tbat  not  less 
than  300,000  muskets  were  placed  in  the 
hands  of  secessionists,  by  the  direct  order  of 
a  Democratic  Secretary  of  War.  This  is 
what  the  Mobile  Advertiser  said  at  th*  time  : 

“  During  the  past  year,  135,430  muskets 
have  been  quietly  transferred  from  the  North- 
;  ern  arsenal  at  Springfield  alone,  to  those  in 
I  the  Southern  States.  We  are  much  obliged 
to  Secretary  Floyd  for  the  foresight  he  has 
thus  displayed  in  disarming  the  North  and 
equipping  the  South  for  this  emergency.  There 
is  no  telling  the  quantity  of  arms  and  muni¬ 
tions  which  were  sent  South  from  other 
Northern  arsenals.  There  is  no  doubt  but 
that  every  man  in  tbe  South  who  can  carry 
a  gun  can  now  be  supplied  from  private  or 
public  sources.  The  Springfield  contribu¬ 
tion  alone  would  arm  all  the  militiamen  of 
Alabama  and  Mississippi.” 

Can  any  sane  man  doubt  tbe  effect  of  such 
encouragement,  coming  from  the  highest 
representatives  of  the  Democratic  party,  upon 
an  excited  people  ?  Is  it  surprising  that  tin 
demagogues  who  fired  the  Southern  hear 
gave  prominence  to  the  pledge  so  often  made 
that  the  Democracy  of  the  North  woul< 
stand  by  the  South  in  its  armed  resista»c< 
to  Federal  authority  ?  Yet  this  is  the  part} 


6 


that  now  demands  control  of  the  Govern¬ 
ment  ;  and  some  of  the  very  men  who  led  it 
then  are  leaders  now.  They  hold  the  same 
views  of  Federal  power ;  they  endorse  the 
same  fatal  doctrine  of  State  Rights  ;  if  in¬ 
trusted  with  power  they  would  encourage,  as 
they  did  in  1860,  the  disruption  of  the  Union. 
Can  the  Nation  trust  this  party  ?  Can  it  risk 
its  future  peace  and  prosperity  in  its  hands  ? 
These  are  questions  of  vital  importance,  and 
no  good  citizen  can  avoid  the  responsibility 
involved  in  their  answer. 

THE  DEMOCRATIC  RECORD  DURING  THE  WAR. 

From  the  record  thus  far  presented,  the 
following  deductions  are  made  : 

1.  The  Democratic  party,  as  the  State 
Rights  party,  educated  its  followers  to  be¬ 
lieve  in  the  right  of  a  State  to  withdraw  from 
the  Union,  at  its  pleasure. 

2.  It  took  no  steps  to  counteract  the  fatal 
tendencv  of  this  doctrine  when  it  assumed 
the  form  of  open  resistance  to  the  Federal 
authority. 

3.  It  had  control  of  the  Government  when 
the  secession  movement  developed  its  pur¬ 
pose  to  establish  a  Southern  Confederacy, 
and  instead  of  promptly  checking  it,  it  vital¬ 
ized  it,  by  giving  it  official  encouragement. 

i.  The  Democratic  party,  through  its  lead¬ 
ing  officials,  not  only  encouraged  secession 
by  friendly  expressions,  but  with  a  full 
knowledge  of  its  hostile  intentions,  deliber¬ 
ately  furnished  its  advocates  with  arms  and 
munitions  of  war  belonging  to  the  Federal 
Government. 

5.  Judged  by  its  record,  the  sympathy  ex¬ 
pressed,  the  promises  given,  the  material 
aid  rendered,  the  unanimous  action  of  its 
Southern  wing,  the  Democratic  party  stands 
responsible  for  the  slaveholders’  rebellion. 

Democratic  encouragement  having  made 
the  rebellion  possible,  what  was  its  policy 
during  the  war  ?  Did  it  endeavor  to  undo 
the  great  wrong  which  it  had  committed,  by 
promptly  responding  to  the  calls  made  upon 
the  patriotism  of  the  Nation  ?  As  a  party,  it 
did  not.  There  were  noble  men  who  pro¬ 
claimed  themselves  war  Democrats,  who  re¬ 
sponded  with  alacrity  to  the  defence  of  the 
Government.  They  laid  aside  the  partizan 
and  became  patriots,  and  by  their  sacrifices 
made  good  their  early  professions  of  fidelity 
to  the  Union  and  the  Constitution. 

But  the  Democratic  party,  as  a  political 
organization,  was  hostile  to  the  Government 
and  the  efforts  put  forth  for  the  suppression 
of  the  rebellion.  Its  mass  meetings,  its 
party  caucuses,  the  correspondence  of  its 
leaders,  the  riots  incited  by  its  followers,  its 
attitude  in  the  elections,  its  undisguised  ex¬ 
pressions  in  Congress,  its  encouragement  of 
desertion,  and  defense  of  those  who  were 
arrested  for  treasonable  conduct,  its  contin- 
aal  clamors  for  peace  in  the  face  of  the  ene¬ 
my, — all  go  to  prove  that  its  sympathies 
were  with  the  Southern  Confederacy,  and 
against  the  cause  of  the  Union. 

On  the  9th  of  January,  1861,  Mr.  Howard, 
of  Michigan,  offered,  in  the  House  of  Repre¬ 


sentatives,  a  resolution  calling  for  the  ap¬ 
pointment  of  a  committee  to  inquire, — 

1.  Whether  any  executive  officer  of  the 
United  States  was  treating  with  any  person 
or  persons  for  the  surrender  of  the  forts  or 
other  public  property  of  the  United  States. 

2.  Whether  any  officer  of  the  Government 
had  entered  into  any  pledge,  agreement,  or 
understanding, ‘with  any  person  or  persons, 
not  to  send  reinforcements  to  the  forts  in 
Charleston  harbor. 

3.  What  demand  had  been  made  for  rein¬ 
forcements,  and  why  they  had  not  been  sent. 

4.  Where  the  ships  of  the  navy  were  sta¬ 
tioned. 

5.  What  public  property  had  been  seized, 
and  the  particulars  of  such  seizure. 

6.  Wliat  naval  vessels  had  been  seized, 
and  whether  any  efforts  had  been  made  to 
protect  or  recover  them. 

These  simple  precautionary  resolutions, 
intended  to  inform  the  Government  of  the 
extent  of  the  danger,  although  adopted  by 
the  House,  received  only  17  Democratic  votes 
out  of  the  133  yeas.  Sixty  Democrats  voted 
against  it. 

On  the  11th  of  February,  1861,  on  the  bill 
providing  for  the  construction  of  war  vessels, 
the  vote  in  the  Senate  stood  30  yeas  to  18 
nays — all  Democrats  in  the  negative.  In  the 
House,  on  the  20th,  the  vote  stood  114  yeas 
to  38  nays,  only  12  Democrats  voting'  in  its 
favor. 

Lieut. -General  Scott,  apprehensive  of  an 
attack  upon  the  Capital,  had  ordered  seven 
companies  of  artillery,  and  one  company  of 
sappers  and  miners  of  the  regular  army,  to 
be  quartered  at  Washington. 

February  14,  1861.  Mr.  Branch,  of  North 
Carolina,  introduced  a  resolution,  declaring 
the  presence  of  these  troops  offensive  and 
insulting,  and  demanding  their  immediate 
withdrawal. 

This  resolution  was  laid  on  the  table,  by  a 
vote  of  125  to  35.  Thirteen  Democrats  voted 
in  favor  of  the  motion,  to  35  against  it. 

February  21,  1861.  A  resolution  was  in¬ 
troduced  by  Mr.  Dawes,  censuring  the  Sec¬ 
retary  of  the  Navy  for  sending  to  distant 
seas  all  the  available  ships  of  the  navy  at  so 
critical  a  period,  when  their  presence  was 
needed  at  home  ;  also,  for  accepting  the  res¬ 
ignation  of  officers  who  were  in  arms  against 
the  Government.  The  report  accompanying 
the  resolution  says  : 

“  That  the  entire  naval  force  available  for 
the  defence  of  the  whole  Atlantic  coast,  at 
the  time  of  the  appointment  of  this  commit¬ 
tee,  consisted  of  the  steamer  Brooklyn,  25 
guns,  and  the  storeship  Relief,  two  guns, 
while  the  former  was  of  too  great  draught  to 
permit  her  to  enter  Charleston  harbor  with 
safety,  except  at  spring  tides,  and  the  latter 
was  under  orders  to  the  coast  of  Africa,  with 
stores  for  the  African  squadron.  Thus,  the 
whole  Atlantic  seaboard  has  been,  to  all  in¬ 
tents  and  purposes,  without  defence  during 
all  the  period  of  civil  commotion  and  lawless 
violence,  to  which  the  President  has  called 
our  attention,  as  ‘  of  such  vast  and  alarming 


proportions,  as  to  be  beyond  bis  power  to  i 
cheek  or  control.” 

Yet  a  resolution  to  censure  so  clear  a  be¬ 
trayal  of  the  pui>lic  safety,  and  one  that 
ought  to  have  received  the  vote  of  every  true 
n$an,  received  only  one  Democratic  vote  out 
cT  the  95  cast  in  its  favor.  Fifty-six  Demo¬ 
crats  voted  against  it. 

July  9,  1861.  Mr.  Lovejoy  offered  in  the 
House  the  following  resolution  :  “That  in 
the  judgment  of  the  House,  it  is  no  part  of 
the  duty  of  the  soldiers  of  the  United  States 
.  to  capture  and  return  fugitive  slaves.”  The 
vote  was,  yeas  92,  nays  55,  not  a  Democrat 
voting  in  its  favor. 

July  15, 1861.  Mr.  Benjamin  Wood  offered 
in  the  House  q.  resolution  recommending  the 
several  States  to  convene  their  Legislatures 
for  the  purpose  of  appointing  delegates  to  a 
general  convention  to  devise  measures  of 
peace.  Although  this  proposition  was  of¬ 
fered  a  few  days  after  the  ’Federal  army  had 
been  defeated  at  Bull  Run,  it  received  the 
entire  Democratic  vote,  with  the  exception  of 
one,  who  voted  with  the  93  Republicans 
against  the  resolution. 

July  29,  1861.  Mr.  Cox  offered  a  resolu¬ 
tion,  providing  for  the  appointment  pf  com¬ 
missioners,  empowering  them  to  request  from 
the  Confederate  States  a  like  commission,  the 
two  bodies  to  meet  and  confer  on  such 
measures  as  may  be  deemed  necessary  ‘  ‘  to 
assuage  all  grievances,”  said  Commissioners 
to  meet  at  Louisville  on  the  first  Monday  in 
September,  and  in  conjunction  with  a  com¬ 
mittee  of  one  from  each  State,  appointed  by 
the  House,  consider  such  amendments  to  the 
Constitution  as  might  tend  to  restore  peace. 
Although  the  war  was  in  full  operation,  and 
the  South  confident  of  success,  this  resolu¬ 
tion  commanded  41  Democratic  votes — only 
two  Democrats  voting  with  the  83  Republi¬ 
cans  against  it.  The  vote  stood  41  yeas,  85 
nays. 

August  2,  1861.  On  a  bill  to  seize  and  ap¬ 
propriate  the  property  of  those  in  rebellion 
against  the  United  States,  and  for  the  more 
effective  suppression  of  the  Kebellion,  the 
vote  stood  yeas  6i,  nays  48,  only  two  Demo¬ 
crats  voting  in  its  favor. 

August  5,  1861.  Mr.  Calvert  offered  a 
resolution  for  the  appointment  of  a  commit¬ 
tee  of  nine  to  consider  and  report  upon 
amendments  to  the  Constitution,  necessary 
to  secure  peace.  The  vote  stood  39  yeas,  72 
nays,  only  one  Democrat  voting  against  it. 

August  5,  1861.  A  bill  was  introduced 
in  the  House,  approving  of,  and  legalizing 
the  acts  of  President  Lincoln,  in  calling  out 
the  militia  and  strengthening  the  army  and 
navy.  Out  of  74  votes  in  its  favor,  only  three 
were  Democrats.  The  19  voting  against  it 
were  Democrats. 

December  30,  1861.  Mr.  Julian  offered  a 
resolution,  instructing  the  judiciary  commit¬ 
tee  to  report  a  bill,  so  amending  the  fugitive 
slave  law,  as  to  forbid  the  recapture  or  re¬ 
turn  of  any  fugitive  from  labor  without  sat¬ 
isfactory  proof  that  the  claimant  of  such 
fugitive' was  loyal  to  the  Government.  The 


resolution  was  passed,  yeas  78,  nays  39,  not 

Democrat  voting  in  its  favor. 

February  6,  1862.  The  House  voted  oh 
the  proposition  for  the  issue  of  $150,000,000 
in  Treasury  notes,  known  as  “  legal-tenders,’* 
also  for  the  issue  of  $500,000,000  in  bonds. 
The  vote  was,  in  favor  of  the  measure,  95, 
againts  it  60,  only  six  Democrats  voting  in 
its  favor. 

February  25,  1862.  The  new  article  of 
war,  prohibiting  military  or  naval  officers 
from  employing  any  of  their  forces  to  capture 
or  return  into  slavery  any  fugitive  from  ser¬ 
vice  or  labor,  passed  the  House.  Yeas,  95 ; 
nays,  51 — only  one  Democrat  voting  in  its 
favor. 

April  3,  1852.  A  bill  for  the  abolition  of 
slavery  in  the  District  of  Columbia  passed 
the  Senate,  by  a  vote  of  29  to  14,  not  a  Demo¬ 
crat  voting  in  its  favor. 

April  11,  1862.  It  passed  the  House  by  t 
vote  of  92  to  39,  only  five  Democrats  voting 
in  its  favor. 

May  12,  1862.  A  bill. passed  the  Hous® 
prohibiting  slavery  in  the  Territories  of  th® 
United  States.  The  vote  stood,  yeas  85,  nays 
50,  only  one  Democrat  voting  in  its  favor. 

June  9,  1862.  Mr.  Colfax  introduced  a 
resolution,  instructing  the  Judiciary  com¬ 
mittee  to  report  a  bill  giving  the  right  ©f 
trial  by  jury  to  all  fugitives  who  deny  un¬ 
der  oath  that  they  were  slaves  ;  also  requir¬ 
ing  proof  of  loyalty  on  the  part  of  the  claim¬ 
ant.  Adopted  by  yeas  77,  nays  42,  only  two 
Democrats  voting  in  its  favor. 

July  11,  1862.  A  bill  was  passed  by  the 
House,  to  “suppress  insurrection,  to  punish 
treason  and  rebellion,  to  seize  and  confiscate 
the  property  of  rebels,  and  for  other  pur¬ 
poses.”  The  vote  stood,  yeas  82,  nays  42, 
not  a  Democrat  voting  in  its  favor. 

July  16,  1862.  A  bill  authorzing  th® 
President  to  receive  into  the  United  States 
service,  persons  of  African  descent,  for  th® 
purpose  of  constructing  intrenchments,  per¬ 
forming  camp  service,  and  doing  such  mili¬ 
tary  or  naval  service  as  they  rnigh  be  found 
competent  to  perform,  was  passed  by  th® 
House,  yeas  77,  nays  30,  only  4  Democrat# 
voting  in  its  favor. 

Dec.  11,  1862.  Mr.  Yeaman,  of  Kentucky, 
offered  a  resolution,  declaring  that  the  Eman¬ 
cipation  Proclamation  of  the  President  was 
not  warranted  by  the  Constitution — that 
the  policy  of  Emancipation  was  dangerous  to 
the  rights  of  citizens  and  to  the  perpetuity  of 
a  free  people.  The  vote  on  this  was  :  In 
favor  47,  against  it  95,  only  3  Democrats 
voting  against  it. 

Dec  15,  1862.  A  resolution  was  intro¬ 
duced  by  Mr.  S.  C.  Fessenden  in  the  House, 
endorsing  the  President’s  emancipation  pro¬ 
clamation  as  a  war  measure,  as  an  exercis® 
of  power  with  proper,  regard  for  the  rights  of 
Hie  State  and  the  perpetuity  of  free  govern¬ 
ment.  The  vote  stood,  yeas  78,  nays  52,  only 
two  Democrats  voting  in  its  favor. 

Jan.  28,  1863.  Mr.  Davis  introduced  a 
proviso  to  be  added  to  a  pending  bill :  “  That 
no  part  of  the  sums  appropriated  by  this  act 
shall  be  disbursed  for  the  pay,  subsistence 


8 


©r  any  other  supplies  of  any  negro,  free  or 
slave,  in  the  armed  military  service  of  the 
United  States.”  Eight  Democrats  voted  in  its 
favor,  28  Republicans  against.  A  strict 
party  vote. 

February  20,  1863.  The  important  mea¬ 
sure,  known  as  “  The  National  Currency  Act, 
of  1863,”  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of 
78  yeas,  to  64  nays  ;  only  three  Democrats 
voting  in  its  favor.  Under  this  act  our  pres¬ 
ent  National  Currency  took  the  place  of  the 
defective  currency  issued  under  the  old  state 
hank  system.  The  currency  act  of  1864, 
which  passed  the  House  April  18,  was  also 
opposed  by  the  Democrats,  the  rote  standing 
in  its  favor  80,  to  66  against  it,  not  a  Demo¬ 
crat  voting  in  its-favor. 

Dec.  14,  1863.  Mr.  Fernando  Wood  offered 
a  resolution  requesting  the  President  to  ap¬ 
point  three  commissioners  to  negotiate  with 
the  authorities  at  Richmond,  “to  the  end 
that  this  bloody,  destructive  and  inhuman 
war  shall  cease.” 

Although  no  desire  had  been  expressed  on 
the  part  of  the  South  for  such  a  conference, 
this  resolution  was  supported  by  59  Demo¬ 
crats.  92  Republicans  and  6  Democrats  voted 
against  it. 

Dec.  17,  1863.  Mr.  Green  Clay  Smith  of¬ 
fered  a  resolution  in  favor  of  “  a  vigorous 
prosecution  of  the  war  until  the  Constitution 
and  law  shall  be  enforced  and  obeyed  in  all 
parts  of  the  United  States,”  opposing  any 
armistice  or  intervention  “so  long  as  there 
shall  be  found  a  rebel  in  arms  against  the 
Government,’  ’  and  ignoring  ‘‘all  party 
names,  lines,  and  issues”  until  the  author¬ 
ity  of  the  Government  was  re-established. 
This  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  94  yeas,  65  nays, 
only  four  Democrats  voting  in  its  favor. 

Dec.  17,  1863.  Mr.  Edgerton  offered  a  reso¬ 
lution  denouncing  “as  among  tbe  gravest 
of  crimes,  tbe  invasion  or  occupation  by 
armed  forces,  of  any  State,  under  the  pretext 
or  for  the  purpose  of  coercing  the  people 
thereof  to  modify  or  abrogate  any  of  their 
laws  or  domestic  institutions  that  are  con¬ 
sistent  with  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  ’  ’  Although  the  laws  and  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  the  Confederate  States  were  being 
used  to  destroy  the  Federal  Government,  this 
resolution  was  not  opposed  by  a  single  Demo¬ 
crat.  The  vote  stood :  In  its  favor  66, 
against  it  90,  a  strict  party  vote. 

Dec  21,  1863.  Mr.  Harding  offered  an 
amendment  to  the  deficiency  bill  that  no 
moneys,  appropriated  should  be  used  for  the 
raising,  arming,  equipping  or  paying  of 
negroes.  It  was  favored  by  41  Democrats, 
the  vote  standing,  yeas  41,  nays  105. 

Jan.  18,1864.  The  joint  resolution,  pend¬ 
ing  in  the  House,  dropping  from  the  rolls  of 
the  army  all  volunteer  officers  who  were 
absent  from  duty,  except  for  good  cause,  and 
intend  to  weed''  out  of  the  service  those 
useless  officers  who  drew  pay  without  per¬ 
forming  service,  was  agreed  to,  by  a  vote  of 
72  to  45.  This  resolution  had  for  its  object 
the  improvement  of  the  service,  yet  not  a 
Democrat  voted,  in  its  favor. 

Feb.  1,  1864.  A  resolution  was  introducd 


by  Mr.  Eldridgc  opposing  the  system  of  draft¬ 
ing,  declaring  it  a  failure,  and  repealing  all 
Acts  authorizing  drafts.  The  House  rejected 
the  measure — 42  voting  in  its  favor,  and  84 
against.  All  those  voting  in  its  favor  were 
Democrats.  Only  three  Democrats  voted 
against  it. 

Feb.  1,  1854.  A  resolution  favoring  a 
more  vigorous  policy  in  the  enlistment  of 
negroes,  to  relieve  thereby  the  burdens  rest¬ 
ing  upon  the  white  soldiers,  was  passed,  by 
a  vote  of — yeas  80,  nays  46.  All  Democrats 
in  the  negative. 

Feb.  12,  1864.  An  amendment  to  the  Sup¬ 
plementary  Enrollment  bill,  providing  for 
the  enrollment  of  colored  persons,  passed 
tbe  House.  The  vote  stood  84  yeas  to  71 
nays.  Not  a  Democrat  voted  in  its  favor. 

It  is  a  noticeable  fact,  that  at  the  very  time 
when  negroes  were  being  employed  by  the 
rebel  army,  and  their  enrollment  sanctioned 
by  Confederate  legislation,  tlie  Democrats  of 
the  North  were  united  in  opposition  to  such 
a  policy  on  the  part  of  the  Federal  Govern¬ 
ment. 

The  bill,  as  amended,  passed  by  a  vote  of 
94  yeas  to  65  nays,  only  five  Democrats 
voting  >n  its  favor  on  the  final  passage. 

Feb.  15,  1864.  Mr.  Arnold  offered  a  reso¬ 
lution,  “  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended 
as  to  abolish  slavery  in  the  United  States, 
wherever  it  now  exists,  and  to  prohibit  its 
existence  in  every  part  thereof  forever.” 
This  resolution  was  passed  by  a  vote  of  78 
to  62,  only  one  Democrat  favoring  it. 

March  17, 1864.  On  a  bill  before  tbe  House 
to  incorporate  the  Metropolitan  Railroad 
Company  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  the 
proviso,  “  That  there  shall  be  no  regula¬ 
tion  excluding  any  person  from  any  car  on  . 
account  of  color,”  was  agreed  to — yeas  76, 
nays  62,  not  a  Democrat  voting  for  it. 

March  21,  1864.  Pending  the  Army  Ap¬ 
propriation  bill,  tbe  proviso  was  offered, 

“  That  no  part  of  the  money  herein  appro¬ 
priated  shall  be  applied  or  used  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  raising,  arming,  equipping,  or  paying 
i*egro  soldiers.” 

This  was  favored  by  18  Democrats,  opposed 
by  8  Democrats  and  74  Republicans. 

April  6,  1864.  A  vote  was  taken  in  th* 
House  on  a  section  of  the  Currency  bill, 
authorizing  the  issue  to  National  Banks 
of  small  notes.  Tbe  vote  stood — yeas  76, 
nays  54,  only  four  Democrats  voting  in  its 
favor. 

April  9,  1864.  A  resolution  was  intro¬ 
duced  in  the  House  by  Mr.  Colfax,  declaring 
Alexander  Long  unworthy  to  be  a  member, 
said  Long  having  favored  upon  tbe  floor  the 
recognition  of  the  independence  of  tlie  South¬ 
ern  Confederacy.  The  vote  on  this  stood — 
yeas  80,  nays  70,  only  one  Democrat  voting 
in  its  favor.  On  the  same  day,  Mr.  vV ashburn 
offered  a  resolution  for  the  expulsion  of  Ben¬ 
jamin  G.  Harris  for  tlie  following  language  : 

“  Tlie  South  asked  you  to  let  them  go  in 
peace.  But  no,  you  said  you  would  bring 
them  into  subjection.  Tliat  is  not  done  yet; 
and  God  Almighty  grant  that  it  never  may 
be.  I  hope  that  yon  will  never  subjugate 


9 


Scfcth.”  The  vote  stood,  yeas  84,  nays 
58,  «nly  one  Democrat  voting  in  its  favor. 
Th*  resolution  requiring  a  two-thirds  vote, 
it  was  lost.  Mr.  Schenck  then  offered  a  reso¬ 
lution  of  oensure,  the  vote  on  this  standing 
98,  nays  20,  seventeen  Democrats  voting 
ia  favor  of  it,  and  twenty-one  refusing  to 
rote. 

April  16,  1864.  A  bill  passed  the  House 
preventing  States  from  taxing  the  capital 
stock  of  National  Banks  at  a  higher  rate 
than  an  equal  amount  of  capital  in  the  hands 
of  individual  citizens,  also  preventing  the 
taxation  by  States  of  the  capital  invested  in 
U.  S.  Bonds  for  deposit  on  circulation.  The 
vote  stood  70  yeaa  to  60  nays,  only  two  Dem¬ 
ocrats  voting  in  its  favor. 

April  30,  1664.  A  bill  increasing  soldiers’ 
pay,  and  giving  bounty  to  colored  soldiers, 
passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of  80  yeaa  to 
61  nays,  only  two  Democrats  voting  in  its 
favor.  All  Democrats  against  it. 

June  6,  1864.  A  bill  for  the  punishment 
guerrillas,  passed  the  House,  yeas  72, 
aays  37,  only  two  Democrats  voting  in  It3 
favor. 

June  13, 1864.  The  House  passed  the  bill 
for  the  repeal  of  the  Fugitive  Slave  law.  The 
vote  stood,  yeas  90,  nays  62,  only  one  Dem¬ 
ocrat  voting  in  favor  of  this  most  righteous 
saeaaure 

June  28,  1864.  Pending  the  consideration 
ot  the  loan  bill,  Mr.  Holman  moved  to  add 
this  proviso:  “That  nothing  in  this  act 
shall  impair  the  right  of  the  States  to  tax  the 
bonds,  notes,  and  other  obligations  issued 
under  this  Act.”  It  was  rejected  by  a  vote 
of  71  to  77,  not  a  Democrat  voting  against  it. 

June  29,  1864.  The  following  proviso  to 
the  civil  appropriation  bill  pending  in  the 
House:  “That  in  the  Courts  of  the  United 
States  there  shall  be  no  exclusion  of  any 
witness  on  account  of  color”  was  adopted, 
ywas  68,  nays  48,  not  a  Democrat  voting  in 
its  favor. 

July  2,  1864.  One  of  the  most  important 
cailitary  bills  of  the  war  passed  the  House. 
It  provided  for  the  raising  of  additional 
troops  either  by  volunteer  enlistment  or  by 
drafting.  The  President,  under  this  Act, 
called  for  500,000  men  for  one  year,  July  18, 
1864.  Vital  as  were  the  provisions  of  this 
bill  for  the  success  of  our  cause,  the  vote 
stood,  yeas  66,  nays  55,  not  a  Democrat 
voting  in  its  favor. 

July  4,  1864.  The  special  war  income 
tax  of  5  per  cent,  on  all  incomes  over  $600  a 
year  was  adopted  by  the  House,  by  a  vote  of 
53  yeas  to  49  nays,  not  a  Democrat  voting  in 
its  lavor.  It  passed  the  Senate  on  the  same 
day  by  a  vote  of  28  to  7,  only  one  Democrat 
voting  for  it. 

Jan.  9,  1865.  A  joint  resolution  passed 
the  House  declaring  that  the  wife  and  chil- 
dren  of  any  person  mustered  into  the  United 
States  service  shall  be  forever  free,  any  law, 
usage,  or  custom  whatsoever  to  the  contrary 
aot withstanding.  Tiie  vote  stood,  74  yeas 
to  63  nays,  not  a  Democrat  voting  in  its 
Savor. 

January  16,  1865.  Mr.  Cox  offered  a  reso¬ 


lution,  that  the  President  be  requested  to 
send  commissioners  to  the  Confederate  au¬ 
thorities  “with  a  view  to  national  pacifica¬ 
tion  and  tranquility  ”  “  although  we  do  not 
know  that  the  insurgents  are  yet  prepared  to 
agree  to  any  terms  of  pacification  which  wc 
would  or  should  deem  acceptable.”  The 
vote  on  this  stood,  yeas  51,  nays  84,  only 
two  Democrats  voting  against  it. 

A  similar  resolution  was  introduced  by 
Mr.  Dawson,  Feb.  13,  1865,  and  laid  upon 
tbe  table  by  a  vote  of  73  to  47,  only  one 
Democrat  voting  with  the  72  Repulicans  in 
favor  of  tabling  the  resolution. 

Jan.  31,  1865.  The  joint  resolution,  pro¬ 
posing  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  for 
the  extinction  of  slavery  throughout  the 
United  States,  and  requiring  a  two-thirds 
vote  for  its  passage,  passed  the  House,  by 
the  following  vote,  yeas  119,  nays  56,  only 
sixteen  Democrats  voting  in  its  favor. 

February  27,  1865,  an  amendment  was 
offered  to  a  pending  military  bill,  repealing 
all  acts  or  part  of  acts  authorizing  conscrip¬ 
tion.  This  was  favored  by  27  Democrats, 
and  opposed  by  only  10;  84  Republicans 
voting  against  it. 

The  Enrollment  Act  of  March  3, 1865,  con¬ 
taining  important  provisions  for  strengthen¬ 
ing  the  army,  passed  the  House  by  a  vote  of 
72  to  56,  only  five  Democrats  voting  in  its- 

faror. 

March  3,  1865,  a  bill  for  the  establishment 
of  the  Freedman’s  bureau,  to  have  the  gen¬ 
eral  superintendence  of  all  freedmen ;  to 
watch  over  the  execution  of  all  lawa,  procla¬ 
mations  and  military  orders  ol  emancipation, 
and  to  establish  necessary  regulations  for 
their  protection,  was  passed  by  the  House  by 
a  vote  of  77  yeas,  to  52  nays,  only  one  Demo¬ 
crat  voting  for  it. 

March  3,  1866,  Mr.  Schenck  from  the  Mili¬ 
tary  Committee  reported  a  resolution  for  the 
revocation  of  the  military  order  which  re¬ 
quired  all  colored  persons  leaving  Washing¬ 
ton  to  procure  passes.  The  vote  stood,  yea3 
75,  nays  24,  only  4  Democrats  voting  for  it. 

Thus  the  record  might  be  continued  with 
the  votes  on  other  measures  of  equal  impor¬ 
tance. 

The  public  acts  to  which  reference  has 
been  made,  and  the  votes  thereon,  are  but  a 
few  of  the  many  that  could  he  shown  proving 
the  deep-rooted  Democratic  sympathy  for  the 
Confederate  cause,  and  the  organized  oppo¬ 
sition  of  the  party  to  measures  absolutely 
essential  to  the  successful  prosecution  of 
the  war.  Can  any  impartial  mind  in  the  re¬ 
view  of  the  votes  presented,  be  brought  to 
believe  that  a  Democratic  majority  in  Con¬ 
gress  would  have  ever  secured  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  Union.  To  the  strong  Republican 
majorities,  representing  the  national  will, 
and  the  determination  of  the  loyal  people  to 
maintain,  without  compromise  or  dishonor, 
the  unity  and  integrity  of  the  Republic,  we 
owe  the  existence  of  the  Government.  This 
much,  at  least,  the  impartial  historian  will 
accord  to  the  Republican  party,  and  its  pa¬ 
triotic  record  when  the  political  history  of 
the  Rebellion  is  truthfully  written. 


10 


* 


From  the  record  presented,  three  conclu¬ 
sions  may  be  l’airly  drawn  : 

1.  The  encouragement  which  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party  gave  to  the  secession  conspira¬ 
tors,  before  the  war,  lost  none  of  its  force 
during  its  prosecutiou. 

2.  The  attitude  of  the  Democratic  party, 
if  not  openly  hostile  to  the  Union  cause,  was 
far  from  friendly  to  it. 

3.  If  the  policy  of  the  Democratic  party, 
as  foreshadowed  by  its  votes  in  Congress, 
had  prevailed,  the  Southern  Confederacy 
would  be  to-day  an  established  fact. 

W ould  the  restoration  of  such  a  party  to 
power  be  conducive  to  the  interest  of  the 
nation?  Would  not  the  future  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  Republic  be  endangered  by 
Democratic  ascendancy  ?  Would  not  the 
organized  opposition  to  the  enactment  of 
those  measures  which  are  now  the  laws  of 
the  land,  find  expression  in  a  failure  to  exe¬ 
cute  or  administer  them  ?  In  a  word,  would 
not  the  restoration  of  the  Democratic  party 
to  the  control  of  the  Nation,  be  the  restora¬ 
tion  of  that  political  power  which  encouraged 
the  South  to  secede,  and  discouraged  by 
vote  and  example  the  efforts  of  a  loyal  peo¬ 
ple  to  suppress  the  rebellion  and  preserve  | 
the  Union  ?  These  are  questions  for  the 
people  to  answer  at  the  ballot-box.  They 
will  then  and  there  resolve  themselves  into 
a  single  question:  “Shall  those  who  were 
the  enemies  of  the  nation  in  time  of  war,  be 
chosen  by  the  people  as  their  trusted  guar¬ 
dians  in  time  of  peace  ?” 


DEMOCRATIC  POLICY  WOULD  HAVE  LED  TO  COX 
FEDERATE  RECOGNITION. 


It  has  been  shown  by  the  record  submitted, 
that  Democracy  encouraged  the  rebellion, 
and  opposed  those  efforts  which  were  deemed 
necessary  for  its  suppression. 

It  may  be  urged  by  its  leaders  to-day, 
that  it  was  in  fdvor  of  suppressing  the  re¬ 
bellion,  and  that  its  opposition  was  not  to 
the  Union,  but  to  the  means  employed  to 
save  it.  Whatever  its  purpose  may  have 
been,  it  is  certain  that  the  effect  of  its  oppo¬ 
sition  to  the  means  employed  tended  to  pro¬ 
long  the  war,  by  holding  out  the  hope  to 
those  m  rebellion  that  peace  would  be  ob¬ 
tained  through  the  recognition  of  the  South¬ 
ern  Confederacy. 

When  the  Southern  States  seceded,  they 
did  so  with  the  determination  never  to  re¬ 
turn  to  the  Union.  If  the  history  of  the 
movement  is  clearer  on  one  point  than 
another,  it  is  on  this  resolution  of  the  sece¬ 
ded  States  never  to  submit  to  Federal  au¬ 
thority.  An  independent  Southern  Confed¬ 
eracy  was  the  only  ultimatum  which  the 
South  had  to  offer  as  a  basis  of  peace.  The 
official  and  private  correspondence  received 
from  the  South  ;  the  speeches  of  its  leaders, 
and  the  language  of  its  press  ;  the  debates 
in  State  legislatures  and  in  the  Confederate 
Congress ;  the  informal  conferences  lie.ld 
from  time  to  time  ;  the  proclamations  and 
messages  of  its  President,  all  go  to  prove, 
that,  from  the  inception  to  the  close  of  the 
movement,  peace  was  not  desirable,  except 


I 


on  the  basis  of  a  recognition  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  Yet,  with  a  full  knowledge  of 
this  fact,  Democracy,  throughout  the  war, 
kept  clamoring  for  a  peace  which  its  leaders 
knew  could  not  be  had,  and  for  a  peaceful 
settlement  of  existing  difficulties,  which  they 
knew  to  be  impossible. 

In  April,  1861,  Roger  A.  Pryor,  of  Virginia, 
said,  in  response  to  a  serenade,  at  Charles¬ 
ton,  South  Carolina  : 

“Gentlemen,  I  thank  you,  especially  that 
you  have  at  last  annihilated  this  accursed 
Union,  reeking  with  corruption  and  insolent 
with  excess  of  tyranny.  Thank  God  !  it  is 
at  last  blasted  and  riven  bv  the  lightning 
wrath  of  an  outraged  and  indignant  people. 
Not  only  is  it  gone,  but  gone  forever.  In 
the  expressive  language  of  Scripture,  it  is 
water  spilt  upon  the  ground  which  cannot 
be  gathered  up.  Like  Lucifer,  son  of  the 
morning,  it  has  fallen,  never  to  rise  again. 
For  my  part,  gentlemen,  if  Abraham  Lin¬ 
coln  and  Hannibal  Hamlin  to-morrow  were 
to  abdicate  their  offices  and  were  to  give  me  a 
blank  sheet  of  paper  to  write  the  condition  of 
re-annexation  to  the  defunct  Union,  I  would 
scornfully  spurn  the  overture.” 

These  sentiments  were  received  with  tu¬ 
multuous  applause  and  wild  enthusiasm,  and, 
as  subsequent  events  showed,  truthfully  rep¬ 
resented  the  prevailing  opinion  at  the  South. 
l7et  in  the  fate  of  these  positive  expressions, 
while  the  life  of  the  nation  trembled  in  the 
balance,  Democracy  devoted  its  energies  to 
the  discussion  of  the  Constitutional  right?  of 
those  who  were  leading  armies  against  the 
Government,  and  in  demanding  for  rebels  in 
arms  the  same  mild  treatment  accorded  to 
law-abiding  citizens.  Is  it  any  wonder  that 
the  loyal  people  distrusted  Democracy,  and 
that  the  Confederates  regarded  it  as  a  North- 
era  ally,  whose  triumph  meant  Southern  in¬ 
dependence. 

Reference  to  letters  written  by  Southern 
leaders,  and  to  the  debates  in  the  rebel  Con¬ 
gress,  and  the  editorials  in  the  Southern 
press,  strengthen  the  statement  that  the  for¬ 
lorn  hope  of  the  Southern  Confederacy  cen¬ 
tred  in  the  restoration  to  power  of  the  Demo¬ 
cratic  party. 

In  the  winter  of  1S02,  (Dec.  24.)  George 
N.  Sanders  wrote  a  letter  to  certain  promi¬ 
nent  New  York  Democrats.  TTie  letter  was 
headed  : 

“Governor  Seymour,  Dean  Richmond, 
John  Van  Buren,  Charles  O’Connor,  Wash¬ 
ington  Hunt,  Fernando  Wood,  and  James 
Brooks,  representative  men  of  the  triumphant 
revolutionary  party  of  New  York.” 

In  his  letter  he  said  : 

“  Let  heart  and  brain  into  the  revolu¬ 
tion  ;  accelerate  and  direct  the  movement, 
get  rid  of  the  Baboon,  (or  What  is  it !) 
Abraham  Lincoln,  pacifieally,  if  you  can, 
but  by  the  blood  of  his  followers,  if  neces¬ 
sary.  Withdraw  your  support,  material 
and  moral,  from  the  invading  armies,  and 
the  South  will  make  quick  work  with  the 
Abolitionists  that  remain  on  her  soli.  Suf¬ 
fer  no  degenerate  son  of  the  South,  upon 


11 


however  plausible  pretext,  to  idly  embarrass 
your  action  by  throwing  into  your  way  rotten 
planks  of  reconstruction.  Unity  is  no  longer  pos¬ 
sible.  The  very  word  Union,  once  so  dear, 
has  been  made  the  cover  for  so  many  atro¬ 
cious  acts,  that  the  mere  mention  of  it  is 
odious  in  the  ears  of  Southern  people.  The 
State  legislatures  will  be  called  upon  to  oblit¬ 
erate  the  hated  name  from  the  counties  and 
towns.” 

This  was  the  response  of  the  South  to  the 
Democratic  triumphs  throughout  the  North 
in  November,  18(32.  How  faithfully  these 
“representative  men  of  the  triumphant  revo¬ 
lutionary  party  of  New  York,”  endeavored 
to  carry  out  the  plan  suggested  by  Mr.  San¬ 
ders,  may  be  understood  by  consulting  their 
record,  and  noting  their  persistent  opposi¬ 
tion  to  the  efforts  of  the  Government  to  sup¬ 
press  the  rebellion. 

After  the  Democratic  successes  in  the  fall 
'  of  1862,  Southern  papers  took  occasion  to 
assure  the  North  that  there  could  be  no  peace 
except  by  recognizing  the  Confederacy. 

The  Richmond  Examiner  said  : 

“  They  do  not  yet  understand  that  we  are 
resolute  to  be  rid  of  them  forever,  and  deter¬ 
mined  rather  to  die  than  to  live  with  them 
in  the  same  political  community  again.” 

The  Richmond  Dispatch ,  anticipating  a 
Democratic  majority  in  Congress,  as  a  result 
of  the  elections,  said  : 

“  It  is  probable,  that  they  might  propose  a 
reconstruction  of  the  Union,  with  certain 
pledges,  guarantees,  &c.  To  this  the  South 
will  never  consent.  They  will  never  exist 
in  the  same  political  association,  be  its  name 
what  it  Bray,  be  its  terms  what  they  will,  and 
be  the  guarantees  whatever  the  good  will  of 
the  Democrats  may  make  them.  We  of  the 
Confederate  States  have  made  up  our  mind* 
to  endure  the  worst  extremity  to  which  war 
can  reduce  a  people.  We  are  prepared  for 
it.  The  Government  that  should  propose  to 
reunite  us  with  the  Yankees  could  not  exist 
a  day.  It  would  sink  so  deep  beneath  the 
deluge  of  popular  indignation,  that  even  his¬ 
tory  would  not  be  able  to  fish  up  the  wreck.” 
•  Again,  on  the  18th  of  October,  the  same 
paper  said  : 

‘^Nor,  after  the  sacrifices  which  the  South 
has  suffered  at  Northern  hands,  could  she 
ever  consent,  of  her  own  free  will,  to  live 
under  the  same  government  with  that  peo¬ 
ple.” 

In  December  (2)  1 862,  the  Legislature  of . 
North  Carolina,  as  if  fearful  that  Northern  j 
Democracy  would  insist  upon  the  Southern 
States  coming  back  on  their  own  terms, 
passed  this  resolution  : 

“  Resolved:  That  the  separation  between 
the  Confederate  States  and  the  United  States 
is  final,  and  that  the  people  of  Nerth  Caro¬ 
lina  will  never  consent  to  a  re-union  at  any. 
-time  or  upon  any  terms.” 

December  8,  18G2.  Governor  Letcher,  of 
Virginia,  wrote: 

“  Let  it  be  understood  that  the  separation 
is  and  ought  to  be  final  and  irrevocable  ;  that 
Virginia  will  under  no  circumstances  enter¬ 
tain  any  proposition  from  any  quarter  which 


j  may  have  for  its  object  a  restoration  or  re- 
!  construction  of  the  late  Union,  on  any  terms 
or  conditions  whatever.” 

In  a  speech  delivered  at  Richmond,  and 
reported  in  the  Enquirer  of  January  7,  1863, 
President  Davis  said  : 

“By  showing  themselves  so  utterly  dis¬ 
graced,  that  if  the  question  was  proposed  to 
you  whether  you  would  combine  with 
hyenas  or  Yankees,  I  trust  every  Virginian 
would  say,  give  me  the  hyenas.” 

The  Dispatch  of  January  11,  1863,  said  : 

“We  warn  the  Democrats  and  Conserva¬ 
tives  of  the  North  to  dismiss  from  their  minds 
at  once  the  miserable  delusion  that  the  South 
can  ever  consent  to  enter  again,  upon  any 
terms,  the  old  Union.  If  the  North  will  al¬ 
low  us  to  write  the  Constitution  ourselves, 
and  give  us  every  guarantee  we  would  ask, 
we  would  sooner  be  under  the  Government 
of  England  or  France  than  under  a  Union 
with  men  who  have  shown  that  they  cannot 
keep  good  faith,  and  are  the  most  barbarous 
and  inhuman,  as  well  as  treacherous  of  man¬ 
kind.” 

The  Richmond  Sentinel  thus  replies  to  tha 
address  of  New  Hampshire  Democrats,  declar¬ 
ing  that  if  the  South  would  “  come  back  into 
the  Union,  the  Democracy  of  the  North  will 
do  all  in  their  power  to  gain  for  them  (the 
Southern  States)  such  guarantees  as  will 
secure  their  safety:” 

“Do  the  New  Hampshire  Democrats  sup¬ 
pose  for  one  moment  that  we  could  so  much 
as  think  of  re-union  with  such  a  people  ? 
Rather  tell  one  to  be  wedded  to  a  corpse  l 
Rather  join  hands  with  a  fiend  from  the  pit. 
When  those  in  the  United  States  who  are 
disposed  to  deal  fairly  with  us  shall  gain  the 
rule,  we  may  in  time  begin  to  bury  the  many 
bitter  memories  which  now  add  energy  to 
our  resentment,  and  make  with  them  treaties 
that  shall  be  mutually  advantageous.  Per¬ 
haps,  hereafter,  good  will  may  be  revived 
again.  But  Union — never  let  it  be  mention¬ 
ed  !  It  is  impossible.  ” 

The  Richmond  Enquirer  of  October  16,  1863, 
said : 

“  What  we  mean  to  win  is  utter  separation 
from  them  for  all  time.  We  do  not  want  to 
govern  their  country  ;  but  after  levying  upon 
it  what  seemeth  good  to  us,  by  way  of  in- 
;  demnity,  we  leave  it  to  commence  its  politi- 
j  cal  life  again  from  fehe  beginning,  hoping 
!  that  the  lesson  may  have  made  them  sadder 
1  and  wiser  Yankees.  We  shut  them  out  for¬ 
ever,  with  all  their  unclean  and  scoundrelly 
ways,  intending  to  lead  our  lives  here  in  our 
own  confederate  way,  within  our  own  well- 
guarded  bounds,  and  without,  as  St.  John 
says,  ‘  without  are  dogs.’  ” 

September  2S,  1863,  a  resolution  was  in¬ 
troduced  into  the  Virginia  House  of  Delegates 
for  inquiring  into  the  tone  and  temper  of  the 
people  of  the  United  States  on  the  subject  of 
peace,  with  a  view  to  responding,  if  favor¬ 
able.  The  Sentinel ,  of  the  29th,  in  speaking 
of  it,  said  : 

“  The  House,  by  a  unanimous  vote,  put  its 
foot  on  the  resolution,  without  a  word  of  dis¬ 
cussion,  or  a  moment  of  delay.  In  this  it 


12 


hut  fairly  represented  the  manliness  and 
unanimity  of  our  people.” 

In  1864,  Henry  W.  Allen,  Governor  of 
Louisiana,  said  in  his  inaugural : 

“  I  speak  to-day  by  authority.  I  speak  as 
the  Governor  of  Louisiana,  and  I  wish  it  to 
be  known  at  Washington,  and  elsewhere, 
that  rather  than  reconstruct  this  Govern¬ 
ment  and  go  back  to  the  Union,  on  any  terms 
whatever,  the  people  of  Louisiana  will,  in 
convention  assembled,  without  a  dissenting 
voice,  cede  the  State  to  any  European  power.  ’  ’ 

The  Richmond  Dispatch ,  in  March,  1864, 
in  an  editorial  on  President  Lincoln’s  am¬ 
nesty  proclamation,  said  : 

“No  one,  however,  knows  better  than 
Abraham  Lincoln,  that  any  terms  he  might 
offer  the  Southern  people  which  contemplate 
their  restoration  to  his  bloody  and  brutal 
Government,  would  be  rejected  with  scorn 
and  execration.  If,  instead  of  devoting 
to  death  our  President  and  military  and 
civil  officers,  he  had  proposed  to  make  Jeff. 
Davis  his  successor,  Lee,  Coaamander-in-chief 
of  the  Yankee  armies,  and  our  domestic  in¬ 
stitutions  not  only  recognized  at  home,  but 
re-adopted  in  the  free  States,  provided  the 
South  would  once  more  enter  the  Yankee 
Union,  there  is  not  a  man,  woman,  or  child 
in  the  Confederacy,  who  would  not  spit  upon 
the  proposition.  We  desire  no  companion¬ 
ship  upon  any  terms  with  a  nation  of  rob¬ 
bers  and  murderers.” 

A  volume  might  be  easily  filled  with  senti¬ 
ments  similar  to  those  quoted,  showing  that 
the  people  of  the  South  were  determined  to 
accept  no  terms  whatever  that  ignored  the 
recognition  of  the  Southern  Confederacy. 

Yet,  with  a  full  knowledge  of  this  deter¬ 
mination  on  the  part  of  the  South,  and  the 
impossibility  of  restoring  the  Union,  except 
by  the  defeat  of  the  Confederate  armies,  the 
Democratic  party  tried  to  divide  Northern 
sentiment  and  cripple  the  administration,  by 
proclaiming  that  the  Southern  States  were 
anxious  to  return  to  the  Union,  and  that  the 
Republican  party  would  not  allow  them. 

Impartial  history  will  record  these  facts  : 

1.  The  Southern  States  gave  up  the  Con¬ 
federacy  when  they  could  no  longer  sustain 
it. 

2.  They  came  back  to  the  Union  when 
they  had  no  power  to  keep  themselves  out. 

3.  The  people  are  indebted  for  the  preserva¬ 
tion  of  the  Union,  not  to  the  Southern  States, 
for  accepting  what  they  had  no  power  to 
reject,  nor  to  the  Democratic  party  for  its 
peace  propositions,  but  to  the  Republican 
party  for  organizing  the  means  necessary  for 
the  prosecution  of  the  war,  and  to  the  loyal 
millions  who  supported  it  with  their  votes, 
and  under  its  inspiration  fought  for  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  the  Union. 

Can  the  nation  forget  these  facts  in  ten 
short  years  ?  Can  it  blindly  turn  aside  from 
Republicanism  to  the  embrace  of  Democracy  ? 
Can  it  safely  transfer  the  control  of  its  Gov¬ 
ernment  from  hands  known  to  he  loyal  to 
those  still  red  with  the  blood  of  its  defend¬ 
ers  ?  These  are  questions  for  the  American 


people  to  answer,  and  on  their  solution  de¬ 
pends  the  weal  or  woe  of  the  Republic. 

CONFEDERATE  HOPES  OF  A  DEMOCRATIC 
TRIUMPH. 

It  has  been  shown  that,  despite  the  asser¬ 
tion  of  the  Northern  Democracy,  the  Soutk- 
ern  States  were  at  no  time,  from  the  incep¬ 
tion  of  the  rebellion  to  its  final  crushing  de¬ 
feat,  willing  to  make  peace  on  any  other 
terms  than  the  recognition  of  the  Southern 
Confederacy.  To  assume  that  Democratic 
leaders  were  ignorant  of  this,  is  to  assume 
that  those  who  were  in  correspondence  with 
leading  rebels  knew  less  of  their  intentions 
than  those  who  were  not. 

The  Presidential  election  of  1864  was  the 
turning-point  in  the  rebellion.  The  Chicago 
Democratic  Convention  had  declared  the  war 
a  failure,  and  favored  a  cessation  of  hostili¬ 
ties.  McClellan  was  the  Presidential  candi¬ 
date  on  this  platform.  Although  he  pro¬ 
fessed  a  desire  to  restore  the  Union,  it  was 
plainly  evident  that  his  election  would  se¬ 
cure  its  permanent  disruption.  Rebel  sym¬ 
pathizers  in  the  North  believed  this,  and 
the  rebel  authorities  in  the  South  so  regard¬ 
ed  it.  The  Southern  Confederacy  strained 
every  nerve  to  hold  out  until  the  people  of 
the  North  decided  for  the  Union  or  against; 
it.  The  re-election  of  Abraham  Lincoln  was 
the  death  blow  of  the  slave  confederacy.  Its 
shell  was  broken,  and  its  formidable  resist¬ 
ance  at  an  end.  The  defeat  of  the  Democratic 
party  was  the  extinction  of  its  hopes  and 
pretensions. 

In  an  interview  with  Governor  Randall,  in 
1864,  President  Lincoln  said  : 

“I  do  not  think  it  is  personal  vanity  or 
ambition,  though  I  am  not  free  from  these 
infirmities,  but  I  cannot  but  feel  that  the 
weal  or  woe  of  this  great  nation  will  be 
decided  in  November.  There  is  no  programme 
offered  by  any  wing  of  the  Democratic  party 
but  that  must  result  in  the  permanent  de¬ 
struction  of  the  Union.” 

“  But,  Mr.  President,”  venturod  Governor 
Randall,  “General  McClellan  is  in  favor  of 
crushing  out  this  rebellion  by  force.  He* 
will  be  the  Chicago  candidate.” 

“  Sir,”  replied  Mr.  Lincoln,  “  the  slightest 
knowledge  of  arithmetic  will  prove  to  any 
man  that  the  rebel  armies  cannot  be  de¬ 
stroyed  by  Democratic  strategy.  It  would 
sacrifice  all  the  white  men  of  the  North  to  do 
it.  There  are  now  in  the  service  of  the 
United  States  nearly  200,000  able-bodied 
colored  men,  most  of  them  under  arms,  de¬ 
fending  and  acquiring  Union  territory.  The 
Democratic  strategy  demands  that  these 
forces  be  disbanded,  and  that  the  masters  be 
conciliated  by  restoring  them  to  slavery. 
The  black  men  who  now  assist  Union  men  to 
escape,  are  ti  be  converted  into  our  enemies, 
in  the  vain  hope  of  gaining  the  good  will  of 
their  masters.  We  shall  have  to  fight  two 
nations  instead  of  one. 

“  You  cannot  conciliate  the  South,  if  you 
guarantee  to  them  ultimate  success  ;  and  the 
experience  of  the  present  war  proves  their 
success  is  inevitable  if  you  fling  the  compul- 


13 


sory  labor  of  millions  of  black  men  into  tbeir 
aide  of  the  seale.  Wilf  you  give  our  enemies 
such  military  advantage  as  to  insure  success, 
and  then  depend  on  coaxing,  flattery,  and 
concession  to  get  them  back  into  the  Union  ? 
Abandon  all  the  posts  now  garrisoned  by 
black  men,  take  200, 000  men  from  our  side 
and  put  them  in  the  battle-field  or  corn-field 
against  us,  and  we  would  be  compelled  to 
abandon  the  war  in  three  weeks. 

“We  have  to  hold  territory  in  inclement 
and  sickly  places  ;  where  are  the  Democrats 
to  do  this  ?  It  was  a  free  fight,  and  the  field 
was  open  to  the  war  Democrats  to  put  down 
this  rebellion  by  fighting  against  both  master 
and  slave,  long  before  the  present  policy  was 
inaugurated. 

“  There  have  been  men  base  enough  to 
propose  to  me  to  return  to  slavery  the  black 
warriors  of  Port  Hudson  and  Olustee,  and 
thus  win  the  respect  of  the  masters  they 
fought.  Should  I  do  so,  I  should  deserve  to 
be  damned  in  time  and  eternity.  Come  what 
will,  I  will  keep  my  faith  with  friend  and 
.foe.  My  enemies  pretend  I  am  now  carrying 
on  this  war  for  the  sole  purpose  of  abolition. 
So  long  as  I  am  President  it  shall  be  carried 
on  for  the  sole  purpose  of  restoring  the 
Union.  But  no  human  power  can  subdue 
this  rebellion  without  the  use  of  the  emanci¬ 
pation  policy,  and  every  other  policy  calcu¬ 
lated  to  weaken  the  moral  and  physical  forces 
of  the  rebellion.” 

These  practical  views  of  President  Lincoln 
fully  illustrate  what  was  then  thought  of  the 
conservative  policy  of  the  Democratic  party 
throughout  the  war.  It  was  a  policy  which 
insisted  upon  treating  as  friends,  men  who 
had  repudiated  friendship,  and  who  pro¬ 
claimed  themselves  uncompromising  ene¬ 
mies. 

In  a  letter  to  Hon.  E.  B.  Wasliburne,  dated 
August  16,  1864,  General  Grant  thus  refers 
to  Confederate  hopes  of  a  Democratic  triumph 
in  the  North : 

“  I  have  no  doubt  but  that  tbe  enemy  are 
exceedingly  anxious  to  hold  out  until  after 
tho  Presidential  election.  They  have  many 
hopes  from  its  effects.  They  hope  for  a 
counter  rovolution  ;  they  hope  for  the  elec- 
ti©n  of  a  peace  candidate ;  in  fact,  like  Mi- 
cawber,  they  hope  for  something  to  turn  up. 
Our  peace  friends,  if  they  expect  peace  from 
separation,  are  much  mistaken.  It  would 
be  but  the  beginning  of  war,  with  thousands 
of  Northern  men  joining  the  South,  because 
of  our  disgrace  in  allowing  separation.  To 
have  ‘  peace  on  any  terms,’  the  South  would 
demand  a  restoration  of  their  slaves  already 
freed.  They  would  demand  indemnity  for 
losses  sustained,  and  they  would  demand  a 
treaty  that  would  make  the  North  slave 
hunters  for  the  South.  They  would  demand 
pay  or  the  restoration  of  every  slave  escap¬ 
ing  to  the  North.” 

Similar  views  were  expressed  by  General 
Thomas,  and  other  leading  Union  generals, 
who  reoognized  in  a  Democratic  triumph  the 
BHocess  of  the  Confederacy. 

It  ean  be  readily  shown  that  while  the 

ceive  the 


Northern  people  into  the  belief  that  the  elec¬ 
tion  of  McClellan  in  1864  would  bring  about 
a  restoration  of  the  Union,  Southern  leaders 
were  regarding  his  election  as  the  certain 
step  toward  Confederate  recognition. 

Sep.  22,  1864.  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 
wrote  to  some  of  the  leading  members  of  the 
Georgia  Legislature,  and  thus  expressed  him¬ 
self  in  regard  to  the  Democratic  party  : 

“  The  action  of  the  Chicago  convention,  se 
far  as  its  platform  of  principles  goes,  pre¬ 
sents,  as  I  have  said  on  another  occasion,  a 
ray  of  light,  which,  under  Providence,  may 
prove  the  dawn  of  day  to  this  long  and  cheer¬ 
less  night,  the  first  ray  of  light  I  have  seen 
from  the  North  since  the  war  began.  This 
cheers  the  heart  and  towards  it  I  could  almost 
exclaim  :  ‘  Hail !  holy  light,  offspring  of 

Heaven,  first-born  of  the  eternal,  co-eternal 
beam.  May  I  express  thee  unblamed,  sine© 
God  is  light.’  Indeed  I  could  have  quite 
so  exclaimed,  but  for  the  sad  reflection  that 
whether  it  shall  bring  healing  in  its  beams 
or  be  lost  in  a  dark  and  ominous  eclipse  ere 
its  good  work  be  done,  depends  so  much 
upon  the  actions  of  others  who  may  not  re¬ 
gard  it  and  view  it  as  1  do.  So  at  best  it  is 
but  a  ray,  a  small  and  tremulous  ray,  enough 
only  to  gladdest  the  heart  and  quicken  the 
hope.” 

William  W.  Boyce,  in  a  letter  to  Jefferson 
Davis,  dated  September  29,  1864,  thus  refers 
to  the  efforts  of  Northern  Democracy. 

“  But  fortunately ,  Mr.  Lincoln  and  those 
he  represents,  are  not  all  of  the  North.  There 
is  a  powerful  party  which  condemns  his  pol¬ 
icy.  That  party  is  rational  on  the  subject 
of  slavery.  It  represents  whatever  of  amity 
or  conservatism  is  loft  at  the  North.  Thi» 
party  proposes  that  the  war  shall  cease,  at 
least  temporarily,  and  that  all  the  States 
should  meet  in  amicable  council,  to  make 
peace  if  possible.  This  is  the  most  imposing 
demonstration  in  favor  of  peace  made  at  the 
North  since  the  war  broke  out.  I  think  our 
only  hope  of  a  satisfactory  peace,  oue  eousist- 
ont  witli  the  preservation  of  free  institutions, 
is  the  supremacy  of  this  party  at  some  time 
or  other.  Our  policy,  therefore,  is  to  give 
this  party  all  the  capital  we  can.  It  may  be 
objected,  that  to  meet  the  Northern  States  in 
convention,  is  to  abandon  our  present  form 
of  government.  But  this  no  more  follows 
than  that  their  meeting  us  implies  au  aban¬ 
donment  of  their  form  of  government.  A 
congress  of  the  States  in  their  sovereign  ca¬ 
pacity,  is  the  highest  acknowledgment  of 
the  principles  of  State  rights.” 

Herschel  V.  Johnson,  in  a  letter  dated 
September  25,  1864,  in  referring  to  the  peace 
movements  of  Democracy,  said: 

“  I  look  with  anxiety  to  the  approaching 
Presidential  electiou  in  the  United  States. 
For,  although  the  Chicago  platform  falls 
below  the  great  occasion,  and  the  nomine© 
still  lower,  yet  the  triumph  of  the  Democratic 
party  of  the  North  will  certainly  secure  a 
temporary  suspension  of  hostilities  and  an 
effort  to  make  peace  by  an  appeal  to  reason. 
They  confess  that  four  years  of  bloody  war, 
as  a  means  of  restoring  tbe  Union,  has  proven 


14 


&  failure.  The/  declare  that  the  true  prin¬ 
ciples  of  American  Government  have  been 
disregarded  and  trampled  under  foot  by  the 
present  executive  of  the  United  States.  Their 
Buccess  will  bring  a  change  of  administration, 
and,  with  that,  a  change  of  policy. 

******** 

“  If  the  Government  of  the  United  States 
should  pass  into  other  hands,  repudiate  the 
policy  of  subjugation,  and  indicate  a  desire 
for  negotiation,  I  would,  if  need  be,  have 
our  Government  propose  it — certainly  accept 
the  offer  of  it,  if  tendered  by  the  Federal 
authorities. 

“We  cannot  have  peace  so  long  as  tho 
present  rulers  of  the  United  States  are  iu 
power.” 

In  a  letter  to  Thomas  J.  Semmes,  under 
date  of  Nov.  5,  1864,  Alexander  H.  Stephens, 
in  spfeaking  of  the  Chicago  Convention,  and 
its  desire  for  a  convention  of  States,  said  : 

“  There  is  no  prospect  of  such  a  proposition 
being  tendered,  unless  McClellan  should  be 
elected.  He  cannot  be  elected  without  car¬ 
rying  a  sufficient  number  of  the  States, 
which,  if  united  with  those  of  the  Confeder¬ 
acy,  would  make  a  majority,  of  the  States. 
In  such  a  convention,  then,  so  formed,  have 
we  not  strong  reasons  to  hope  and  expect 
that  a  resolution  could  be  passed,  denying 
the  constitutional  power  of  the  Government, 
under  the  compact  of  1787,  to  coerce  a  State  ? 
Tho  Chicago  platform  virtually  does  this 
already.  Are  there  not  strong  reasons,  at 
least,  to  induce  us  to  hope  and  believe  that 
they  might  ?  If  that  could  he  done,  it  would 
end  the  war.  It  would  recognize  as  the 
fundamental  principle  of  American  institu¬ 
tions  the  ultimate,  absolute  sovereignty  of 
the  several  States.  This  fully  covers  our 
Independence — as  fully  as  I  wish  ever  to  see 
it  covered. 

******** 

“You  will  also  allow  me  to  say,  that  I 
look  upon  the  election  of  McClellan  as  a  mat¬ 
ter  of  vast  importance  to  us  in  every  view  of 
the  case,  and  hence  I  thought  it  judicious, 
patriotic,  and  wise,  to  do  every  thing  that 
could  be  properly  done  to  aid  in  his  election. 
Whatever  may  be  his  individual  opinion,  he 
is  the  candidate  of  the  State  Rights  party  of 
the  North,  in  opposition  to  the  centralists 
and  consolidationists,  whose  hobby  now  is 
abolitionism.  I  have  thought  from  the  be¬ 
ginning,  that  our  true  policy  was  to  build  up 
and  strengthen  such  a  party  at  the  North  by 
all  means  in  our  power.  Not  only  upon  the 
wise  maxim  of  Philip  of  Macedon,  to  divide 
the  enemy  as  a  question  of  policy  merely, 
but  from  a  higher  and  much  nobler  motive. 
Not  only  an  early  peace,  but  our  future 
safety,  security,  and  happiness  required  it. 

“  The  old  Union  and  the  old  Constitution 
are  both  dead,  dead  forever,  except  in  so  far 
as  the  Constitution  has  been  preserved  by  us. 
There  is  for  the  Union  as  it  was,  no  resurrec¬ 
tion  by  any  power  short  of  that  which 
brought  Lazarus  from  the  tomb.  There  may 
be,  aud  doubtless  are,  many  at  the  North, 
and  some  at  the  South,  who  look  forward  to 


tiou  as  it  was  ;  but  such  ideas  are  vain  and 
illusory,  as  the  dreamy  imaginings  of  the 
Indian  warrior,  who,  in  death,  clings  to  his 
weapons  in  fond  expectation  that  he  will 
have  use  for  them  beyond  the  grave,  in  other 
lands  and  new  hunting  grounds. 

“  These  fears  of  voluntary  reconstruction  are 
but  chimeras  of  the  brain.  No  one  need  en¬ 
tertain  any  such  from  McClellan’s  election. 
But,  on  the  contrary,  I  think  that  peace, 
upon  the  basis  of  a  separation  of  the  States 
aud  our  independence,  would  be  the  almost 
certain  ultimate  result,  if  our  authorities 
should  act  wisely,  in  the  event  of  his  elec¬ 
tion.  *  *  *  * 

“At  least  two-thirds  of  McClellan’s  own 
party  manfully  hold  aud  proclaim  the  doc¬ 
trine  that  there  is  no  power  in  the  central 
Government  to  coerce  a  Stale.  This  element 
would  oppose  a  further  prosecution  of  the 
war.  Meanwhile,  financial  embarrassments 
would  be  doing  their  work.  The  war  would 
inevitably  fail  in  consequence  (in  the  event 
of  McClellan’s  attempting  to  carry  it  on). 
When  all  efforts  to  persuade  our  people  to  go 
back  into  the  Union  voluntarily  failed,  as 
thev  would,  if  our  authorities  shall  so  act  as 
to  secure  the  hearts  aud  affections  of  the 
people  as  they  ought,  then  McClellan  wouid 
ultimately  be  compelled  to  give  np  the  restor¬ 
ation  of  the  Union  as  a  forlorn  hope.  Peace 
would  come  slowly  but  surely  upon  our  owu 
terms,  and  without  any  more  fighting. 

“Other  causes  would  operate  to  the  same 
results,  which,  of  themselves,  even  without 
considering  those  above  stated,  would  effect 
the  same  tliiug .  The  moment  McClellan 
should  renew  the  war  with  the  avowed  ob¬ 
ject  of  restoring  the  Union  with  the  old  Con¬ 
stitution  and  all  its  guarantees,  that  moment, 
or  as  soon  as  possible,  our  recognition 
abroad  would  come. 

“  Lincoln  had  either  to  witness  our  recog¬ 
nition  abroad,  the  moral  power  of  which 
alene,  he  saw,  would  break  down  the  war, 
or  to  make  it  an  emancipation  war.  He 
chose  the  latter  alternative,  and  the  more 
readily  because  it  chimed  in  so  accordantly 
with  the  feelings  and  views  of  his  own  party. 
This,  in  my  opinion,  is  the  plain  English  of 
the  whole  matter  ;  ahd  just  as  soon  as  Mc¬ 
Clellan  should  renew  the  war  with  a  view 
to  restore  the  Union,  the  old  Constitution, 
with  slavery,  etc.,  would  England,  France, 
and  other  European  Powers,  throw  all  the 
moral  power  and  influence  of  their  recogni¬ 
tion  on  our  side. 

“  So  in  any  and  every  view  I  can  take  of 
the  subject,  I  regard  the  election  of  McClel¬ 
lan,  and  the  success  of  the  State  Rights 
party  of  the  North,  whose  nominee  he  is,  of 
the  utmost  importance  to  us.  With  these 
views,  you  readily  perceive  how  I  regarded 
the  action  of  the  Chicago  convention  as  a 
ray  of  light,  the  first  ray  of  real  light  I  had 
seen  from  the  North  since  this  war  began.” 

The  views  presented,  coming  as  they  do 
from  those  who  were  considered  conservative 
leaders  in  the  South,  prove  conclusive^’, 
that  the  Democratic  policy,  throughout  the 


15 


oiling  well-grounded  liopes  of  the  ultimate 
recognition  of  the  Southern  Confederacy. 
They  further  prove  that  the  old  Democratic 
cry  of  tne  “  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  the 
Union  as  it  was,”  was  as  utterly  repudiated 
by  the  rebels  themselves  as  was  the  Federal 
authority  against  which  they  fought.  There¬ 
fore,  it  may  be  fairly  concluded,  that  the 
triumph  of  the  Democratic  party  in  1S64 
would  have  resulted  in  the  permanent  disso¬ 
lution  of  the  American  Union. 

DEMOCRACY  AND  RECONSTRUCTION. 

Has  Democracy  changed  in  its  principles 
since  the  close  of  the  war  ?  if  it  has,  there  is 
no  record  of  the  change.  Throughout  the 
period  of  reconstruction,  when  the  Govern- 
rnent  sought  to  throw  proper  safeguards 
around  the  Republic,  and  to  provide  a  Re¬ 
publican  form  of  government  in  those  States 
lately  in  rebellion,  the  Democratic  party  was 
even  more  unanimous  in  its  opposition  to 
Governmental  measures  than  it  was  during 
the  war,  and  this  opposition  it  has  continued 
down  to  the  present  time. 

The  14th  and  15th  Amendments  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution,  absolutely  necessary  for  the  protec¬ 
tion  of  the  nation  in  the  future,  were  opposed 
unanimously  by  the  Democrats,  not  only  in 
Congress,  but  throughout  the  States  passing 
upon  their  ratification.  The  joint  resolution 
proposing  the  14th  Amendment,  passed  the 
House,  June  8,  1866,  by  a  vote  of  138  yeas 
to  36  nays,  not  a  Democrat  voting  in  its 
favor.  The  joint  resolution  proposing  the 
15th  Amendment,  passed  the  House,  Janu¬ 
ary  30,  1869,  by  a  vote  of  150  yeas  to  42 
nays,  not  a  Democrat  voting  in  its  favor. 

Thus  two  of  the  most  important  amend¬ 
ments  to  the  Constitution,  on  which  vast  in¬ 
terests  of  property  and  life  depend  for  safety 
and  security,  are  in  force  to-day,  without 
the  endorsement  of  a  single  Democratic  vote. 
Is  it  probable,  in  view  of  this  significant 
fact,  that,  a  Democratic  administration  would 
faithfully  carry  out  their  righteous  provis¬ 
ions  ? 

A  review  of  the  Congressional  record  shows 
a  marked  unanimity  on  the  part  of  the  Dem¬ 
ocrats  against  all  measures  of  reconstruction. 
Duriug  the  war,  they  based  their  opposition 
ou  the  ground  that  the  Union  could  be  pre¬ 
served  without  lighting,  although  the  mighty 
armies  of  the  Confederacy  proved  this  to  be 
impossible.  At  the  close  of  the  war,-  they 
opposed  all  reconstruction  measures  on  the 
ground  that  the  States  could  be  restored 
without  them,  although  disorder,  and  an¬ 
archy,  and  smothered  liate  in  the  rebellious 
States  proved  this  to  be  impossible. 

The  Government  exerted  itself  to  restore 
all  the  Southern  States  to  their  proper  rela¬ 
tions  in  the  Union,  and  to  lift  as  quickly  as 
possible  the  hardships  of  war  from  the  shoul¬ 
ders  of  the  Southern  people.  But  at  all 
times,  in  every  effort,  Democracy  met  it  with 
opposition.  It  threw  obstacles  in  the  way  ; 
it  encouraged  the  Southern  people  to  believe, 
as  ll  did  in  1860,  that  their  rights  were  being 

;d  a  feeling  of  bitterness 


was  forced  to  contend  ;  it  created  divisions 
among  those  who  had  honestly  accepted  the 
situation  ;  it  finally  arrayed,  through  its  in- 
fiuence,  the  whites  against  the  blaciis.  In  a 
word,  it  prolonged  the  period  of  reconstruc¬ 
tion,  as  it  had  the  period  of  war,  by  clamoring 
for  certain  conditions  which  it  knew  t#  be 
impossible,  and  by  holding  out  hopes  to  th@ 
Southern  States  which  it  knew  could  never 
be  realized. 

The  Ku-Klux  organizations,  the  white 
leagues,  the  bloody  massacres  of  helpless 
blacks,  the  disorders  which  have  called  for 
Federal  interference,  can  be  traced,  as  di¬ 
rectly  as  was  the  rebellion,  to  the  encourage¬ 
ment  given  to  them,  in  Congress  and  out,  by 
the  votes  and  speeches  of  Democratic  leaders. 

Whatever  of  peace  aud  prosperity  have 
been  secured  to  the  Southern  States,  and  es¬ 
pecially  to  the  Natioff,  since  the  close  of  the 
war,  is  due  to  the  wisdom  and  firmness  of 
the  Republican  party.  As  it  prosecuted  the 
war  for  the  preservation  of  the  Union,  and 
turned  neither  to  the  right  nor  to  the  left 
until  this  was  accomplished,  so  it  has  gone 
straight  forward  in  the  work  of  reconstruc¬ 
tion  ;  and,  unmindiul  of  the  Democratic 
obstacles  which  it  has  encountered,  it  has 
restored  peace  and  prosperity  to  the  revolted 
States,  and  advanced  the  material  wealth  of 
the  country  more  than  four  times  the  entire 
cost  of  the  war. 

If  any  one  honestly  believes  that  the 
Democratic  party  has  become  converted  by 
the  logic  of  events,  he  has  but  to  study  the 
work  of  the  party  in  those  States  where  it 
has  obtained  control.  The  character  of  the 
laws  enacted  in  regard  to  suffrage  and  labor  ; 
the  reassertion  of  the  old  State  Rights  doc¬ 
trine,  which  marked  its  rule  in  ante  helium 
times  ;  the  cunningly-drawn  amendments  to 
State  Constitutions,  intended  to  again  divide 
allegiance ;  the  political  character  of  the 
men  who  are  to  represent  it  in  the  coming 
C^hgress  ;  the  elevation,  through  its  votes 
and  influence,  of  those  who  were  mainly 
responsible  for  the  Southern  rebelLtwa,  aud 
who  led  its  armies  against  the  Government — 
all  these  things  combined,  point,  as  with  the 
finger  of  prophecy,  to  the  resurrection  of  the 
fatal  doctrine  of  State  Rights  under  Demo¬ 
cratic  domination,  if  again  clothed  with 
national  power  by  the  votes  of  the  American 
people.  Its  votes,  its  speeches,  its  acts, 
prove  the  Democratic  party  the  same  enemy 
of  good  government  that  was  dismissed  from 
power  in  1860.  Shall  it  be  restored?  Can 
tiie  Nation  trust  in  its  hands  its  honor,  its 
unity,  and  the  solution  of  those  great  prob¬ 
lems  of  humanity  and  civilization,  which 
to-day  demand  the  highest  wisdom  and  the 
purest  patriotism  ? 

Why  should  it  trust  to-day  what  it  dared 
not  trust  in  I860,  1864,  1868,  1872?  The 
party  has  not  changed.  Its  principles,  its 
sympathy,  its  purposes,  are  as  clearly  defined 
now  as  then.  If  the  Nation  could  not  trust 
the  men  who  voted  and  worked  against  the 
Union,  how  can  it  trust  them,  now  that  they 
are  under  the  domination  of  those  who  fought 


party  that  has  so  nobly  borne  the  burden*  of 
the  past,  and  so  grandly  brought  the  Nation 
through  its  trials.  Let  them  forget  all  local 
jealousies  and  minor  issues  until  it  is  settled 
beyond  dispute,  that  the  men  who  saved  the 


Republic  shall  continue  to  govern  it.  Let 
them  hold  out  to  all,  whether  friends  or  foes, 
that  the  only  true  basis  for  reconciliation  and 
safety  is  devotion  to  the  Union,  and  obedi¬ 
ence  to  its  laws  and  authority. 


Coraialttees  and  Individuals,  in  ordering  Political  Pamphlets,  will  please  designate  th«  papers  reqnierd 
tey  tae  number  on  the  left  hand  corner  of  the  title  page.  Address  “Union  Republican  Congreasioiial  Exec¬ 
utive  Committee,  Washington,  D.  C.,’’  and  incLc  te  whether  packages  shall  be  sent  by  mail  or  expreaa. 


INFORMATION  FOR  THE  PEOPLE. 


LIST  OF 

CAMPAIGN  PAMPHLETS, 

PUBLISHED  BY  THE 

UNION  CONGRESSIONAL  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 


No.  1. — Growth  of  the  Nation  under  Re 
publican  Rule.  Eight  pages. 


No.  2. — Vaticanism  in  Germany,  and  in  the 
United  States.  Eight  pages. 


No. 


No. 


No. 


3.  — Can  the  Nation  Trust  the  Demo 

cratic  Party?  Sixteen  pages. 

4.  — Record  and  Platforms  of  the  Demo¬ 

cratic  Party.  Speech  by  Senator 
Morton,  at  Urbana,  Ohio,  August 
7,  1875.  Eight  pages. 

5.  — The  National  Finances  and. 

rency  ;  containing  statistical'  -^re¬ 
tails  in  full,  to  the  close  of  t£e 
fiscal  year,  ended  June  30,  187L 
Eight  pages. 


Other  documents  are  being  prepared,  and 
will  be  published  as  the  canvass  proceeds. 

Campaign  pamphlets  are  furnished  to  in¬ 
dividuals,  clubs,  committees,  etc.,  at  the  fol¬ 


No.  6. — High  and  Low  Tariffs,  and  Theur 
Effects.  Four  pages. 

No.  7. — Our  Currency:  Its  Volume  and 
Character  ;  also  :  Taxes  :  Who 
Pays  Them  ?  Four  pages. 

No.  8. — Vaticanism  in  Germany,  and  in  the 
United  States.  (In  German.) 

Eight  pages. 

No.  9. — The  People  a  Nation  :  The  Union 
Perpetual.  Eight  pages. 

No.  10. — The  Southern  Question  :  The  Con¬ 
spiracy  to  Rule  or  Destroy  the 
Nation.  Twelve  pages. 

No.  11.  — Growth  of  the  Nation  Under  Re¬ 
publican  Rule.  (In  German.) 

Eight  pages. 


lowing  rates  :  Four-page  pamphlets,  25  cents 
per  hundred  copies  ;  eight-page,  50  cents  ; 
twelve-page,  75  cents  ;  sixteen-page,  $1.00. 


IR» lal O  ; 

3JLon£lily  X>o,vote<l  to  tlio  33is@evai.ia.ati on 

or  Political  Information. 

The  fifth  volume  of  The  Republic,  (commenced  in  July  1875,)  is  printed  from  a  new  and 
handsome  type,  on  fine  paper.  Other  important  improvements  have  been  introduced  in 
-he  variety,  arrangement,  and  make-up  of  the  magazine.  Under  an  enlarged  corps  of  able 
wriUrs  a  broader  field  of  political  review  and  discussion  of  national  questions  has  been 
adopted ;  and  it  is  believed  that  the  new  volume  will  be  a  decided  improvement  m  every 

way  upon  its  predecessors. 

TERMS.— The  Republic  is  a  magazine  of  sixty-four  pages,  published  monthly,  at  $2  a 
year  or  six  copies  for  $10.  The  postage,  In  all  cases,  will  be  paid  by  the  publishers.  A 
tew  copies  of  the  back  volumes  may  yet  be  obtained,  either  bound  or  m  numbers.  Remit¬ 
tances  should  be  made  by  postal  money-order  or  registered  letter.  Address  “Republic 
Publishing  Company.  n  Washington,  D _ 


